

% 4 







^ ^ A X -v. 







HISTORICAL STUDY OF THE 
MOTHER TONGUE 



THE HISTORICAL STUDY OF 
THE MOTHER TONGUE 

AN INTRODUCTION TO PHILOLOGICAL 
METHOD 

BY HENRY CECIL WYLD 

BAINES PROFESSOR OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND PHILOLOGY IN THE 
UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL 



NEW YORK 
E. P. DUTTON AND COMPANY 

1906 






ei r 



Printed in Great Britain 



; 



?? 



PREFACE 

In undertaking the task of writing such a work as the 
present small volume, I did not disguise from myself the 
difficulty of what lay before me ; now that I have com- 
pleted it, I am in no way blind to the imperfections of the 
achievement. In a sense, the object of the book is a modest 
one — to give, not the history of our language, but some 
indications of the point of view from which the history of 
a language should be studied, and of the principal points 
of method in such a study. These methods are chiefly 
determined by the views which are held at the present 
time concerning the nature of language, and the mode of 
its development ; and such views, in their turn, are based 
upon the knowledge of facts, concerning the life-history of 
many languages, which have been patiently accumulated 
during the last eighty years. I have hoped, in the fol- 
lowing pages, to prepare the way for the beginner, to the 
study of at least some of the great writers who have been 
the pioneers of our knowledge of the development of our 
own tongue, and of its relations to other languages, as well 
as the chief framers of contemporary philological theory. 
Thus the present work aims at no more than to serve as 
an introduction to the more advanced scientific study of 
linguistic problems in the pages of first-hand authorities. 



vi PREFACE 

Advanced text-books of the German type are naturally 
almost unintelligible to the beginner, who has not under- 
gone some preliminary training in philological aim and 
method. Of the text-books published in this country, 
which are nearly all of a more popular description, some 
are — to our shame be it spoken — mere cram-books, which 
strive only to give such ' tips ' as shall enable the reader to 
pass certain examinations, while several others, by writers 
of repute and learning, are lacking in any general state- 
ment of principles or reference to authorities, in case 
the student should by chance wish to pursue the subject 
further than the covers of this or that small if admirable 
book. Again, a serious defect, as it appears to me, of 
many of the best elementary books on the History of 
English, is that the bare facts are stated, dogmatically 
and categorically, without any suggestion as to the sources 
of information or the methods of arriving at the results 
stated. As a practical teacher of English to University 
students of various stages of knowledge, from beginners 
onwards, I know that intelligent students are often irri- 
tated, on the one hand, by not being told how certain 
facts concerning past forms of speech are arrived at, and, 
on the other hand, by finding no reference to authorities 
who might give them the information which the writer 
of the manual so often withholds. 

The worst feature in the withholding of such informa- 
tion is that the solitary student, who has not access to 
University classes, after he has read the books and mastered 
the facts, has yet not received anything in the shape of a 
training in the actual methods of the science of language ; 
he has acquired a knowledge of a certain number of facts, 



PREFACE 



but they exist in his mind isolated, and unrelated to any- 
thing else, least of all to a principle of wide application. 
Thus he acquires no new outlook upon linguistic phenomena, 
no method whereby he can pursue the subject for himself 
It is believed that the chapters upon General Principles 
which follow, may be of use in putting the student upon 
right lines of further thought and study. 

In dealing with genera] questions, I have sought as far 
as possible to illustrate principles by concrete examples 
drawn from the development of English. 

In treating the more specific problems connected with 
the Aryan and Germanic languages I have sought, not so 
much to supplement the knowledge which it is possible to 
derive from the usual small work on Comparative Philology 
as to make this clear on those points where I have found 
uncertainty to exist in the minds of students as to the 
precise bearing of this or that statement, and also to relate 
this part of the subject to general principles of the history 
of language on one hand, and on the other to the history of 
our own language. I thought it advisable to add a chapter 
on Methods of Reconstruction, since, although most of the 
small text-books teem with references to Parent Aryan 
I have never yet found a student who had gathered from 
their pages how anyone knew what Parent Aryan was like 
In this section, as throughout the book, I have striven to 
keep ever before the mind of the student the fact that we 
are dealing with changes in actual speech sounds, and not 
with letters, which is, unfortunately, too often the impres- 
sion gathered from elementary manuals. I believed that 
a brief statement concerning the phenomena grouped 
together under the name Ablaut or Gradation would be 



viii PREFACE 

useful, seeing that any explanation of them is generally 
omitted in the kind of books referred to— even in the 
best. 

The task of selection, in treating the development of 
English itself, was very difficult, and I do not claim to 
have accomplished it with perfect success. Among the 
books generally accessible to students who are compelled 
to tackle the subject without the help of an experienced 
and highly trained teacher, there are several which con- 
tain an admirable marshalling of facts. Since I believed 
it desirable to devote a large portion of so small a book 
as the present to general questions, space was not available 
to restate facts which are to be found in most other books 
corresponding in size to the present volume. I therefore 
tried to select such points as I have found are generally 
the least well understood by ordinary students with no 
special training, but which are, nevertheless, of the greatest 
importance to a proper understanding of the facts of 
present-day English. I have tried, amongst other things, 
to emphasize, rather more than is usually the case in books 
for beginners, the rise of double forms in Middle English, 
and to show how often both doublets survive, if not in 
standard English, then in the modern dialects— one type 
in this form of present-day English, another in that. It 
is desirable that students should realize that much that is 
considered 'vulgar 1 in English is merely so by convention— 
for the reason, that is, that the polite dialect has selected 
another form, but that a very large number of 'vulgarisms 1 
are historically quite as ' correct , as the received form. 
This knowledge must tend to a saner and a more scientific 
view of what is < right ' or < wrong ' in speech. My debts. 



PREFACE ix 

to other books of various kinds are, it need hardly be said, 
innumerable. I trust that I have made some, if not ade- 
quate, acknowledgment in the references given hereafter. 

I am proud to acknowledge a special debt to Dr. Henry 
Sweet, one that is far deeper than any I could have con- 
tracted by the mere use of his books, great as that is. 
For many years past, the cordial personal intercourse 
which I have been privileged to enjoy with Dr. Sweet, 
has been an unfailing source of stimulus and enlighten- 
ment. I regret that this little work is not a worthier 
tribute to his teaching and influence. If the following 
pages should contribute at all to a wider adoption of 
Dr. Sweet's Phonetic and Historical Methods, in Training 
Colleges and in the upper forms of secondary schools, 
and among private students, it will help to bring about 
a sounder mode of study of our own tongue than that 
which is commonly pursued in the majority of such 
institutions. 

It is a pleasant duty to express my gratitude to Miss 
Irene F. Williams, M.A., formerly Research Fellow of the 
University of Liverpool, who most generously undertook 
the laborious task of compiling the index to the present 
volume. This contribution, by an expert English philo- 
logist, must, I feel sure, materially increase the utility of 

the book. 

HENEY CECIL WYLD. 

Alvescot, Oxon, 
July, 1906. 



CONTENTS 

CHAPTER PAGE 

I. INTRODUCTION ; THE AIMS OF HISTORICAL LIN- 
GUISTIC STUDY ------ 1 

II. THE SOUNDS OF SPEECH ----- 27 

III. HOW LANGUAGE IS ACQUIRED AND HANDED ON - 55 

IV. SOUND CHANGE - - - - - - 67 

V. DIFFERENTIATION OF LANGUAGE : THE RISE OF 

DTALECTS ------- 91 

VI. LINGUISTIC CONTACT - - - - - 119 

VII. ANALOGY - - - - - - - 128 

VIII. METHODS OF COMPARISON AND RECONSTRUCTION - 141 
IX. THE ARYAN OR INDO-GERMANIC MOTHER-TONGUE, 

AND THE DERIVED FAMILIES OF ^LANGUAGES - 165 

X. THE GERMANIC FAMILY - - - - - 195 

XI. THE HISTORY OF ENGLISH I GENERAL REMARKS ON 
THE SCOPE AND NATURE OF THE INQUIRY, AND 

THE MAIN PROBLEMS CONNECTED WITH IT - 205 

XII. HISTORY OF ENGLISH : THE OLD ENGLISH PERIOD 216 

XIII. THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PERIOD - - - ' - 250 

XIV. CHANGES IN ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION DURING 

THE MODERN PERIOD THE DEVELOPMENT OF 

E-NGLISH SOUNDS FROM THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY 

TO THE PRESENT DAY - 299 

XV. THE STUDY OF PRESENT-DAY ENGLISH - - 339 

SUBJECT INDEX --____ 382 

WORD INDEX ---____ 393 

LIST OF AUTHORITIES REFERRED TO - 409 



CHAPTER I 

INTRODUCTION ; THE AIMS OF HISTORICAL 
LINGUISTIC STUDY 

The practical study of language, or rather the study of 
language for practical purposes, is familiar to everyone, 
and plays, of necessity, a large part in all schemes of 
education. In infancy and childhood the mother-tongue 
is gradually, although instinctively, acquired. Later on, 
the native tongue becomes the subject of more deliberate 
study, and to this is added, for the most part, that of 
other languages, both living and dead. 

It is convenient to consider as ' practical ' that study of 
languages which has as its aim the mastery of tongues 
for the purpose of using them — that is, for the purpose 
either of speaking or reading them, or both. 

From this point of view the schoolboy acquires, with 
various degrees of success, the pronunciation, the vocabu- 
lary, and the general structure of several languages, both 
ancient and modern. He is instructed in the rules of 
inflection and of syntax ; he masters many exceptions, 
which perhaps, in his eyes, hardly serve to prove the rule. 

In all this study of Latin and Greek, English, French, 

1 



2 INTRODUCTION 

and German, which in this country occupies the chief 
energies of boyhood and early manhood, the view of 
language which is perpetually before the mind of the 
student is one and the same — namely, that of language 
in a state of suspended animation, stationary, and un- 
changing. That is to say, that the various languages are 
studied merely in the forms in which they exist at a par- 
ticular period of their devejopment. There is, as a rule, 
but little suggestion from the teacher that the language 
under consideration has developed from something very 
different ; still less that, if it is a living tongue, it will 
probably change still further — that it is, in fact, in a 
constant state of flux. The literary form of language is 
that upon which the attention is almost exclusively con- 
centrated, and the student naturally learns to regard 
language as something fixed and unchanging. He is not 
encouraged to ask the reason for the rules which he has to 
master, and must be content with the explanation which 
comes so readily from the teacher's tongue : that some 
apparent exception to the general rule was made — de- 
liberately, for all that he hears to the contrary — \ for the 
sake of euphony. 1 It is but rarely suggested that some 
puzzling rule of ' letter ] change in Latin or Greek is based 
upon the speech habits of the Romans or Greeks hundreds 
— perhaps thousands — of years before the Classical Period 
of those languages, or that the conditions under which the 
' exceptional ' form occurs differ, in a way that can be 
ascertained, from those which produce the ' normal ' form. 
It is not intended, in the above remarks, to criticise 
adversely the methods employed in teaching the Classics 
to the very young ; the age at which scientific explanations 



DIFFERENT VIEWS OF LANGUAGE 3 

of linguistic facts should be given is a question for educa- 
tionists to decide. All that it is for the moment desired 
to emphasize is that the practical study of language 
differs very considerably from the historical study, in 
point of view and in method. 

Every teacher of the history of English or of any other 
language knows how difficult it is to convey to young 
students at the University the first inkling of the historical 
point of view and method as applied to language. 

Nor is this surprising when we consider how different is 
the way in which one trained in historical methods regards 
human speech, from that which is the natural standpoint 
of the practical and literary student of language. To 
take a few points : the schoolboy has been taught, 4 We 
ought to pronounce as we spell ] ; when he begins to study 
the history of a language he is told, 4 Not at all ; we spell 
in such and such a way, because originally the pronuncia- 
tion was approximately this or that.' He has hitherto 
believed that the written, literary form of language was 
the real language, and that uttered speech was a rather 
lame attempt to follow the former ; instead of this view 
receiving confirmation from his new teachers, he is asked 
to discard it completely, to think of language as some- 
thing which is primarily uttered and heard, and to 
banish, for the time being, from his mind the fact that 
writing has been invented. Again, whereas the young 
student has probably gathered that ' rules ' of speech were 
made by grammarians, and therefore must be obeyed, 
he now hears that the grammarians have absolutely no 
authority to prescribe what is ' right ' or ' wrong, 1 but can 
merely state what is the actual usage, and that they are 

1—2 



4 INTRODUCTION 

good or bad grammarians according as they report truth- 
fully on this point. 

To many people ' exceptions ' to grammatical rules are 
as the breath of their nostrils, and ' irregularities ' in 

language are a source of income. It is therefore dis- 
cs o 

concerting to a youth, hitherto bred up in an atmosphere 
of linguistic chaos, to be told that the entire conception 
elf 'exceptions' upon which he has been nourished is 
fundamentally fallacious, that there is no such thing as 
real ' irregularity ' in the historical development of speech, 
that anomalies are only apparent, that nothing occurs in 
language without a reason, and that this reason must be 
sought, even though, in many cases, it elude our pursuit. 
It is to be hoped that there is nothing unjust in this 
adumbration of the contrast between what we may call the 
popular or literary, (in this case they are the same thing) 
and the philological view of language. The examples 
given as exhibiting the point of view of one who has 
never approached the problems of the history of a 
language are all drawn from the personal experience of 
a teacher. 

We may now endeavour to state rather more fully the 
main considerations upon which the method of historical 
linguistic study at the present time is based. The general 
method pursued is the outcome of the views now held 
concerning the nature of language, and the conditions 
under which it lives and grows. 

By the history of a language is meant an account of its 
development in all its dialects, of all the changes which 
these have undergone, from the earliest period at which it 
is possible to obtain any knowledge of them, down to the 



THE HISTORICAL VIEW 5 

latest. This investigation demands the formulation, so 
far as possible, of the laws of change which obtain at any 
given moment in the language — that is, a statement of 
each tendency to change as it arises, and an examination 
of the factors and conditions of each tendency. Now, all 
knowledge of any period of a language other than the 
present, must necessarily be obtained from written docu- 
ments. What we are investigating, however, is the life- 
history of the language itself — that is, of the feelings and 
ideas of the people, as they have been handed on and 
modified through the ages, and of one of the most direct 
and expressive symbols of these, namely, the various 
sounds formed by the organs of speech. Uttered speech 
is itself a mere set of symbols of certain states of con- 
sciousness ; a mode of expression often less direct than 
a gesture, a picture, or a statue, since these can represent 
a passion, a wish, or a memory of an event in such a 
way that they may be of universal significance. The 
symbol in these cases is self-interpretative. The symbols 
of speech, however, are only intelligible to those to whom 
they have become familiar by custom, and who associate 
the same groups of ideas with the sounds. Uttered 
speech, therefore, is an indirect and symbolic mode of 
conveying impressions from one mind to another ; but 
written language is more indirect still, for it is but the 
symbol of a symbol. Until the written record is inter- 
preted, and converted into the sounds which it symbolizes, 
it means nothing ; it does not become language. 

This process of interpretation has to be carried out, 
and the veil of symbolism rent asunder, before we can 
arrive, in dealing with the records of the past, at the 



6 INTRODUCTION 

actual subject of our investigation. We must never lose 
sight of the true aim of our search — the spoken sound, 
which is the outward and audible part of language. It 
is clear that the degree of success with which we recon- 
struct the earlier stages of a language, and therefore the 
measure of accuracy in our views of its history, depends 
to a very large extent upon our power of interpreting 
correctly the written symbols, and of making them live as 
sounds. 

But, however successful may be our attempts at re- 
vivifying the past history of a language, so long as we 
confine ourselves to a single tongue the limits of possibility 
are reached comparatively soon — the record fails us often 
just when we most need it. In tracing back the history of 
English, we have a series of documents which stretch back 
for more than twelve hundred years. During this period 
the language has undergone many changes — in sounds, in 
vocabulary, in accidence, and in the structure of the 
sentence. The earlier writings, in so far as they are, within 
the limits of possibility, a faithful record of what was 
actually the condition of English at different stages of 
development, enable us to observe the rise and passing 
away of various habits of speech and tendencies to change. 
Thus, for instance, we can understand why 4 breath ' (brcj>) 
has a voiceless final consonant, and 'breathe' 1 (brlS) a voiced, 
since we can show that the latter word had an earlier 
form, O.E. brce)>an or bre\an (inf.), whereas the O.E. form 
of the former was broe\ or bre\ ; and, further, that voiceless 
open consonants were voiced in O.E. medially between 
vowels, but remained voiceless when final. The voiced 
sound in ' breathe ' is therefore due to a change which took 



PAST INTERPRETS PRESENT 7 

place hundreds of years ago, when the verbal forms still 
retained their suffixes, and when > was followed by a vowel. 
In the same way we need not go beyond our own language 
to understand the difference of vowels between the singular 
' child ' and the plural ' children.'' In this case, as in the 
former, there is nothing in the spelling of the two forms 
to indicate a difference of pronunciation. In O.E. the 
singular was cild, which originally had a short vowel. 
Before the end of the O.E. period, however (by 1050 
probably), short vowels were lengthened before the com- 
bination -Id. This old long i developed quite regularly 
into our present diphthong (ai). This lengthening, how- 
ever, did not take place when the combination -Id- was 
followed by a third consonant. The O.E. plural of this 
word was cildru, which in M.E. appears as childre side by 
side with the weak form children, both of which forms 
retained the old short % sound. This sound has remained 
unchanged down to the present time. The differences 
between singular and plural here, therefore, are due to the 
presence or absence respectively, of the conditions of vowel- 
lengthening in O.E. 

On the other hand, there is avast number of phenomena 
whose explanation cannot be found within the history of 
English itself, because their causes lie further back than 
the period of the oldest English records. The substantive 
6 doom ' (dum) is related to the verb ' deem,'' the former 
being normally developed from O.E. dom, the latter from 
O.E. deman. Here the difference exists already in the 
oldest form of English of which we have any direct know- 
ledge. We might surmise, perhaps, that the relation of 
the two vowels (u) and (I) in these words was identical with 



8 INTRODUCTION 

that between those of the words 'tooth'' (tup), plural 
' teeth ' (ti])), or goose (gus), geese (gis), which in O.E. are 
£o]?, ^ej?, gos 9 ges, respectively. Since the differences here 
are already well established in the earliest form of English 
which has come down to us, we are unable to decide from 
a consideration of that language by itself whether this 
vowel difference is original — whether, that is, from time 
immemorial there have always been two distinct forms of 
the roots of these words, or whether the differences arose 
at a later date. In the latter case we should assume that, 
owing to causes which cannot be traced in the O.E. period 
as we know it, one original vowel had been differentiated 
into two quite separate sounds. Is there any way of 
getting beyond the written documents of English and 
settling this question ? Can we by any means reconstruct 
the forms as they existed before they were separated ? 
Assuming that the differences are not primitive, can we 
supply the missing link which O.E. cannot reveal ? The 
answer is to be found in the wider survey of other cognate 
languages, known as the Science of Comparative Philology. 
It has been universally accepted since Franz Bopp founded 
scientific philology, that what are known as the Aryan or 
Indo-Germanic languages, are a group of speech -families 
descended, or developed from a common ancestor. English, 
as is well known, is a member of the Germanic family 
of this group. By a minute comparison of the peculiarities 
of all the sister languages of a family, comparative 
philology endeavours to gain a knowledge of a form older 
than any of them — their common ancestor. In the case of 
English we should first try, by comparing the Germanic 
tongues, to reconstruct parent Germanic, and then, by a 



COMPARATIVE AND HISTORICAL GRAMMAR 9 

similar process of comparison of this with the ancestral 
forms of other Aryan families — Indian, Greek, Italic, 
Slavonic, etc. — to reach some conception of the source 
of all, the Primitive Aryan mother-tongue. The methods 
of comparison and reconstruction will be discussed later 
on, and it is sufficient here to point out the close relation- 
ship between historical and comparative grammar. The 
latter is, indeed, only an extension of the former ; it carries 
the study of the history of a single language further back, 
and seeks to shed more light upon it by investigating the 
habits and nature of its sisters, cousins, parents, and grand- 
parents. We may consider Aryan speech as one vast and 
living stream of language, which has flowed into many 
different branching channels. These, again, fork out into 
innumerable rivulets. 

Languages which have been separate for thousands of 
years have altered so much from their original form, and 
have developed on such different lines, that they are often 
absolutely unrecognisable as relatives; but, nevertheless, 
we may reflect that English, as it is spoken to-day, has 
reached its present form by being passed on from mouth 
to mouth for thousands of years, from a time when it 
began to vary from a tongue which had in it the potenti- 
alities not only of English, but also of Greek, of Slavonic, 
and Celtic. Every family of languages, each individual 
of the family, has its peculiar habits and tendencies of 
development. One language may very early lose a feature 
which another will preserve for ages. Again, a certain 
characteristic may disappear from a language, leaving 
behind it, however, a trace of its existence. In this case 
we can see the result, but not the cause, nor can we account 



10 INTRODUCTION 

for the result until we find that some other language has 
preserved the feature in question. The change of vowels 
in O.E. dom, deman, etc., can easily be accounted for by a 
comparison with the other Germanic languages, which show 
that the O.E. noun preserves the original vowel 6, which 
has been changed in O.E. from a back to a front vowel 
through the influence of a front consonant (j) which 
has disappeared in that language, although it is preserved 
in Gothic domjan, Old High German tuomian. This 
particular kind of change, known as i-mutation, occurs 
in hundreds of words in O.E., though, as a rule, the i or j 
which caused the fronting, disappeared before the English 
period, leaving only the effects of its original presence, 
which can be demonstrated, however, from cognate lan- 
guages. 

In the historical study of a language we are perpetually 
brought face to face with problems, the solution of which 
requires not only a careful sifting of evidence, but a trained 
judgment in drawing conclusions therefrom. To deal 
successfully with historical linguistic problems the critical 
faculty needs to be formed and strengthened by contact 
with the actualities of living speech, and clarified by a 
knowledge of the general conditions which govern the 
development of all language. 

Of late years some understanding of the general prin- 
ciples of speech development has come to be regarded as 
essential to the fruitful study or just conception of the 
history of any language. It is now commonly held that 
the best way to form sound general views as to the nature 
of speech-life is to study the facts of living language, 
especially as they are displayed most familiarly in the 



STARTING-POINT OF THE STUDY 11 

speech habits of ourselves and our contemporaries. These 
facts, which we can observe directly, are the best key to 
the understanding of those forces which helped to mould 
language in the past, since there is no reason for believing 
that the conditions under which human speech existed 
and developed in bygone ages were essentially different 
from those which obtain at the present day. We should 
endeavour, therefore, to realize what the c life ' of language 
really is by the practical study and observation of a living 
tongue, and, further, that tendencies to modify language, 
such as we may discover in ourselves, have always been in 
operation ; in other words, the process of the evolution of 
language is always going on, and the factors which direct 
it are of the same kind in all periods. 

The life of language has two aspects — the facts of human 
consciousness, which are the subject of psychological 
investigation, and the facts connected with the mode of 
expression, which in the case of speech are the sounds 
which result from the movements of the vocal organs. 
This latter group of facts are the subject of a special 
branch of physiological inquiry, that of practical Phonetics. 

If linguistic study be confined to a purely literary form 
of language, and especially to the literary forms of the 
ancient languages, there is a tendency for the student to 
get into the habit of considering language as some- 
thing cut and dried, and fixed once for all in a definite 
mould. 

We are apt to forget that all literary languages are, to 
a certain extent, artificial products. They are deliberate, 
and bound by tradition, and they lack the spontaneity of 
unstudied, natural utterance. The development of literary 



12 INTRODUCTION 

dialects will be discussed hereafter, but it may be pointed 
out here that this form of language is slowly evolved from 
the spoken language, and is in all cases behind this in 
development, in the sense of being more archaic, and 
generally less flexible and adaptable. Any new departure 
in the literary language can only come from the spoken 
form. In the case of languages which are no longer spoken, 
and which therefore depend entirely upon literary tradition, 
development is impossible. In the case of Latin, for 
instance, which is still largely cultivated as a literary 
vehicle, it is obvious that no innovation can take place, 
except, indeed, by the incorporation into Latin style of 
the idiom of the writer's native tongue, which was largely 
done by mediaeval writers, and possibly, quite unconsciously, 
at the present day also, even by good scholars. Such 
innovations as this, however, do not change real classical 
Latin itself, and are rightly regarded as 'corruptions.' 
There is no possible source of Latin except genuine Latin 
authors ; all potentialities of normal development are at an 
end, and Latin prose, when written at the present day, 
can only be a reproduction of well-authenticated modes of 
expression, for which sanction can be found in the classical 
writers. 

The literary form of a language which is still spoken, 
however, is forever receiving fresh life from the colloquial 
speech. As new words or expressions come into use in the 
spoken language, they are gradually promoted to a place 
in the language of literature, and they often remain in use 
here after they have ceased to be employed in the ordinary 
colloquial speech of everyday life. Thus the written form 
of a living language does not become fixed, but is forever 



THE LITERARY BIAS 13 

undergoing regeneration and rejuvenation. But this new 
life comes primarily from the spoken language. 

Another unfortunate view which the exclusive study of 
the literary language gives rise to, is that which regards 
speech as something with a life of its own, something 
which can exist apart from those who speak it. That 
which is written remains : scratched on parchment or 
graven upon stone, the symbols of written language may 
endure for countless ages. This permanence and indepen- 
dence of the symbol has led men to attribute the same 
character to that for which it stands. 

Now, it is an essential element in the conception which 
scholars at the present day have of language, that it does 
not exist by itself, and apart from the speakers. This 
conception brings us back to the importance of spoken 
language, for this can only be reached through the speakers 
themselves. The study of speech, as has been indicated, 
involves, first, that of certain psychological processes, and, 
secondly, that of the symbol and expression of these — that 
is, of speech sounds, which are the result of certain series 
of bodily activities. 

The outward and audible part of language, the symbol 
of what is inward and of the mind, can be reached directly 
and immediately ; it can be observed in others as well as 
in ourselves. The psychological side of language can only 
be studied directly and immediately by the analysis of our 
own consciousness. From the use of intelligible symbols 
we are able to infer in other minds the same mental pro- 
cesses and conceptions as those which exist in our own. 
For these reasons we insist upon the importance of the 
careful study of spoken language generally, and also 



14 INTRODUCTION 

in particular, upon that of our own speech in both 
aspects. 

Spoken language is the natural expression of the person- 
ality of living human beings ; from the nature of the case, 
this must vary along with the change of their mental and 
bodily habits. A nation, a small community, or an indi- 
vidual, is continually gaining new experiences, feeling new 
aspirations, discovering fresh needs. All these conditions 
find expression in their speech. Speakers form fresh 
associations, and gradually come to use old words in 
a new way. The history of a single language yields in- 
numerable instances of change in the meanings of words. 
Or words fall out of use, because for some reason they are 
superfluous. Again, contact with other nations is the means 
of introducing foreign words into the native vocabulary, 
both for things and ideas which are quite primitive and 
familiar, and for those which pass into the national con- 
sciousness as knowledge and experience widen. In the 
domain of vocabulary there is a perpetual losing, gaining, 
and readaptation of material. 

Nor does pronunciation stand still in a living language. 
Speech sounds are the result of certain bodily movements, 
which we may consider as a group of physical habits. 
The habitual movements of the vocal organs vary from 
generation to generation, and so, therefore, do the sounds 
which result from them. Up to a certain point of literary 
development, the written form of a language records, 
approximately, the changes of pronunciation, though the 
record is probably always some way behind the actual 
facts, after the first attempts to write the language down 
have been made. But after a time a fixed method of 



SOUND CHANGE 15 

spelling is introduced, with which the pronunciation grows 
more and more out of harmony as time goes on. In 
English, the main features of our spelling became fixed in 
the sixteenth century, so that the far-reaching changes 
in our pronunciation which took place during the next 
three centuries are, of course, unrecorded in our 
orthography. J 

The"prmciples and possibilities of sound change, which 
are so vitally important in modern philology, can only be 
really grasped by those who have investigated, in their 
own speech, the processes of articulation, and have 
observed how these tend to vary. 

Before leaving, for the moment, the question of change 
in pronunciation in living speech, we may consider a little 
more fully the importance of a phonetic training for the 
student of the history of his own or any other tongue. 
We have just seen that sound change is a process which is 
always going on in language, and it has been noted that 
the interpretation of the written symbols of the past plays 
a very large part in historical linguistic study ; and, further, 
in judging of what took place in the past, we need the help 
of our actual experience of the present. This is especi- 
ally true of theories of the change of sounds, for unless 
these changes can be realized in a practical way, our 
account of the development of speech forms degenerates 
into a mere algebraic equation, far removed from the real, 
living facts. Now, if these assertions are true it follows 
that a general knowledge of the processes upon which 
speech sounds depend, and some power to discriminate 
varieties of sound is essential to the scientific study of 
language. One result of the one-sided view of language 



16 INTRODUCTION 

which is almost universal in this country is that hardly 
anybody really knows what his own speech is like. Most 
people think of language in terms of black symbols on 
white paper, and not in terms of sounds at all. 

They even go the length of pretending that they 
, can hear a difference between such pairs as horse — hoarse, 
Parma — Palmer, kernel — colonel, and so on. Of course, 
a difference can easily be made ; pronunciation can. be 
6 faked ' to any extent. The point is that in ordinary 
educated English speech in the South, there is no differ- 
ence between the above pairs. 

Phonetics is still regarded by the majority of educated 
persons as either a fad, or a fraud, possibly a pious one. 
If it is insisted that more attention should be paid, in the 
teaching of English, to the ' spoken language,'' there is an 
outcry to the effect that English literature is one of the 
noblest of human achievements, that the ordinary speech 
of children and even of grown-up people is full of vul- 
garisms, mistakes in grammar, and solecisms of every sort, 
and that by dwelling upon English as it is spoken, these 
errors will merely be confirmed. English, it is urged, 
is seen at its noblest in the works of the great writers ; 
these should form the sole subject of English studies. To 
suggest a scientific way of investigating the sounds of the 
language which we speak, rouses antipathy and opposition. 

It is, of course, easy to find reasons against that which 
we cannot or will not understand. Thus when, a few 
years ago, the Scotch Education Department introduced 
phonetics into the list of subjects to be studied in the 
training colleges, arguments of the most conflicting nature 
were urged against the measure. The present writer 



POPULAR MISCONCEPTIONS 17 

has the best reason for knowing that, whereas one party 
held that it was preposterous for the Department to try 
and * improve ' Scottish speech by insisting upon the adop- 
tion of English models of pronunciation, others objected 
chiefly because, they said, to dwell upon what actually 
occurred in Scotch pronunciation, instead of insisting upon 
what ought to occur, would tend to confirm and perpetuate 
the vulgarisms. 

As both of these objections, or similar ones, are prob- 
ably urged not only in Scotland, but also in this country, 
against the study of phonetics, it is, perhaps, worth while 
to answer them. In the first place, it should be said that 
by the study of phonetics is not meant the attempt to 
introduce this or that pronunciation, but simply a study 
of the actual movements of the vocal organs which result 
in the various sounds of human speech. A phonetic 
training involves, then, no more than development of the 
power of discriminating between different sounds, and a 
knowledge of how the sounds are made. If we could hear all 
sounds quite accurately, and knew how to reproduce them, 
we should have no trouble in acquiring the pronunciation 
of foreign languages. This is perhaps an impossible degree 
of perfection for most, but a phonetic training will un- 
doubtedly help in the right direction. It may be added 
that every teacher of languages must needs be to a certain 
extent a phonetician ; he endeavours to teach his pupils to 
pronounce certain sounds ; he pronounces the sound him- 
self, and often tries to explain how this is done. All that 
is here urged is that he should give right instructions, and 
not, as is too often the case, a perfectly fantastic account 
of the position of the tongue, jaws, etc. It should be 

2 



18 INTRODUCTION 

understood that phonetic study does not involve a prefer- 
ence for this or that manner of pronunciation of English. 
In fact, the first lesson which the serious student of 
phonetics has to learn is to take facts as they are, to 
start with, to begin with his own natural pronunciation, 
and to attempt to become conscious of the movements 
of his tongue and lips in framing those sounds which he 
habitually employs in speaking his native language, with- 
out discussing the question of whether his pronunciation 
is 'good" or 'bad." A street arab who had thoroughly 
mastered the principles of his own ' speech basis ' — that is, 
of that group of movements and positions of tongue, lips, 
jaws, etc., which occurred naturally in his manner of 
speech — and who could accurately describe these, would be 
a far more competent phonetician than the speaker of a 
very ' pure ' and refined form of English who was ignorant 
of what his own sounds actually were, or of how he made 
them. This brings us to a consideration of the fallacy 
that the minute study of one's own pronunciation, if it 
happens to be faulty or 'vulgar,' will tend to confirm 
and make more inveterate those defects which it should 
be our constant endeavour to get rid of. This view is 
a very common one, and it amounts to saying that if we 
have a failing or a vice, which we wish to correct, it is 
better to ignore it, or at most only to have a very vague 
idea of its precise nature. "Whether this principle holds 
good or not in conduct, or in intellectual habits, we need 
not discuss here, but it is absolutely certain that it is 
false in matters of pronunciation. One reason why so 
many teachers of foreign languages fail to impart an 
accurate pronunciation to their pupils is that they them- 



VULGARISMS 19 

selves are so frequently quite unacquainted with the speech 
basis of those whom they are teaching. They are unable 
to say authoritatively, ' Your English sound is so-and-so, 
and it is made in such and such a way ; this foreign sound 
for which you are substituting your own sound which 
strikes your ear as something like it, is so-and-so and it 
is made in such and such a way, entirely different from 
that set of articulations which produces the English sound.' 
If we wish to master a foreign sound, instead of being con- 
tent with substituting a sound of our own language which, 
to the untrained ear, somewhat resembles it, we must 
thoroughly understand both sounds, so as to discriminate 
between and contrast, both the sounds themselves, and the 
vocal movements and positions which produce them. 

If, then, it be desired to ' correct ' the pronunciation of 
the native language, the same principle holds, for from the 
moment that the problem is to acquire a new sound, it 
matters not whether that sound occurs in another form of 
English or in some remote foreign tongue, the difficulty 
is of the same kind — namely, to master a new series of 
movements, or a new combination of movements, of the 
organs of speech. 

Whatever be the case then, in other spheres of thought 
and conduct, in pronunciation, at any rate, an accurate 
knowledge of our 'faults' is the beginning of 'improve- 
ment ' : it is, indeed, a necessary first step. 

With regard to the expressions so commonly applied to 
speech, such as 6 mistake, 1 ' vulgarism," ' corruption,' and 
the like, it is inevitable that our views of the propriety of 
such terms should change in proportion as we learn some- 
thing concerning the path of development which any 



20 INTRODUCTION 

language has travelled during a few centuries. The 
reason for this statement will appear more fully in the 
course of this book ; but it may be said here that most 
of the abusive terms popularly applied to certain forms of 
speech have, from the scientific point of view, either no 
meaning at all, or one which differs widely from that 
which such terms usually bear. 

One who is accustomed to observe how a language 
changes in the course of centuries ; how speakers in one 
age, or in one province, naturally acquire habits of speech 
which differ widely from those which obtain at other times 
and in other geographical areas ; how a community tends*' 
to modify its speech now in one direction, now in another, 
sometimes owing to social or other conditions which can 
be traced, sometimes without any discoverable external 
cause, one who is an unprejudiced student of the develop- 
ment of human culture as it is expressed in spoken language, 
is unwilling to assert that one line of development is 'good, 1 
while another is ' bad,' or to dogmatize as to what ought to 
be the form which language shall take. If we regard the 
unfolding of that body of habits which we call ' language ' 
as a natural process, one which is for the most part uncon- 
scious and independent of the deliberate intention of the 
speakers, we are content to chronicle what actually exists, 
and investigate so far as possible how it arose : we do 
not attempt to adjudge praise or blame to this or that 
phenomenon. In a word, as students of the history of 
language, we are concerned purely with the facts, all the 
facts that we can ascertain, and from them we endeavour 
to form a clear conception of what is, and of how it arose 
out of what was. 



CORRECTNESS IN LANGUAGE 21 

Do we then, admit no 6 right ' or ' wrong , in language 
from this point of view? Certainly we do; only we 
should define these terms, as Osthoff pointed out years 
ago (Schriftsprache unci Volksmundart, Berlin, 1883, 
p. 25, etc.), in rather a different way from that popularly 
accepted. Whatever exists in the natural speech of a 
community at a given period is right for the speech of that 
community at that particular moment; it is, whether we 
like it or not, a fact of the speech history of the com- 
munity. Any manner of speech — whether pronunciation, 
word, grammatical inflection, or form of sentence — which 
is foreign to the natural speech habit of a community at a 
given period is wrongs so far as the dialect of the moment 
in that particular community is concerned. 

The failure to grasp this simple principle is responsible 
for the popular misconception of the terms 6 correct ' and 
6 incorrect ' speech, and the consequent misuse of them. 

What usually happens is that the critic of language 
has in his mind a vague picture of an ideal standard of 
language, probably based on his own vague notion of the 
way he speaks himself, and he proceeds to test all other 
modes of speech by this standard. If other speakers 
appear to the censor to approximate to his own standard, 
he approves them as 6 good ' or ' correct ' speakers ; if he 
gathers that they deviate from the model which he has 
set up, then they are set down as being ' corrupt,' ' in- 
correct,' or even 'vulgar.' But he does not realize that 
those who speak differently from himself are not pretend- 
ing, for the most part, that they are speaking in the same 
way as he does. They are quite frankly using the natural 
dialect of another geographical area, another suburb, it 



22 INTRODUCTION 

may be, or of a different social class. Probably each man 
who comes under the condemnation of our critic is, as a 
matter of fact, speaking his own dialect quite 4 correctly ' 
from the point of view mentioned above. On the other 
hand, a mixture of dialects is not infrequently heard. A 
speaker tries to adopt the speech of what he considers a 
more refined or more elevated sphere than that which is 
customary to him, and occasionally reverts to his own 
natural way of speaking — to his native dialect, in fact. 
The error in judging of such cases lies in not realizing 
that every form of speech, whether it be a provincial or 
a class dialect, has a perfectly good reason for existing 
and for being as it is ; each has its own history, and has 
followed its own path of development. According to this 
view, therefore, each dialect is equally ' good^ and equally 
6 correct.'' There are, however, two tests by which the 
relative superiority of different dialects may be gauged — 
the one real and absolute, the other artificial and a 
matter of convention. 

A language may justifiably be judged, and its merits 
appreciated, according to its qualities as a medium of 
expression. The degree of expressiveness which a language 
possesses is its true claim to respect. If it can be shown 
that one form of speech is more flexible, more adapt- 
able to the needs of those who speak it, more capable 
of expressing subtle shades of thought and feeling than 
another, then we may surely say that it is the finer 
language of the two. 

The other test of superiority, which we have called 
artificial and conventional, has a very real existence in 
English — namely, the test of what is received and re- 



STANDARD ENGLISH 23 

cognised as the ' correct ' form of speech in polite and 
cultivated society. From the purely scientific point of 
view, as has been already set forth, no difference of 
superiority can be recognised between the speech heard 
at the bench of a village ale-house and that of the 
Bench of Bishops. But according to the actual feelings 
of English society, that of the latter is the more dis- 
tinguished, graceful, and desirable. It is a fact which 
nothing can alter, that there is a form of English which 
enjoys a prestige, and a place in the general estimation 
of which nothing can rob it. This form of English is 
essentially a class dialect ; it is independent, or largely in- 
dependent, of locality ; it is the form of English which 
obtains, with an astonishing degree of uniformity, among 
the upper and upper middle classes of this country, and it 
may be heard with the same purity in Durham, York, 
Newcastle, or Birmingham, as in London, Oxford, or Cam- 
bridge. So greatly is this standard English prized, that 
those who have not acquired it from the cradle upwards, 
usually take pains to do so in later life, and there can be 
no doubt that it is convenient for those who wish to enter 
the public services or to take part in distinguished social 
gatherings to possess it, or at least a good imitation of it. 
Those who have spoken from childhood this colourless form 
of English, free from provincial peculiarities, devoid of the 
rasping sound of inverted r before consonants, with no ten- 
dency to shaky initial aspirates in stressed words, or even 
in words which have only a secondary stress, no undue 
mouthing or over-emphatic utterance, not unnaturally 
regard it as the purest, most harmonious, and most refined 
form of English speech. This view of a language, how- 



24 INTRODUCTION 

ever, is purely a matter of custom ; we always admire 
most what we are accustomed to hear and to use ourselves. 
Such an estimate has no absolute value, but is entirely 
relative and subjective. Speakers of Northern English 
and Scotch speakers often consider standard English as 
mincing and affected, in some cases even (e.g., the loss of 
the r-sound before consonants) as slipshod and almost 
vulgar. So much for habit. 

The historical position of this polite form of English is 
that it is a very mixed dialect, which, by a variety of social 
and political circumstances, has acquired prominence over 
all other English dialects by becoming the language of 
Literature (for the written language is largely based upon 
it), of the Court, of the aristocracy, of the Law, the Church, 
the Legislature, and the Stage. It is probable that the 
Metropolis, Oxford, and the East Midlands all contributed 
to its origin, while the remoter influences of the North and 
the extreme South have both helped to shape it. We 
shall have to consider the rise of this dialect more in 
detail later on. It might probably be maintained with 
considerable plausibility that, owing to the circumstances 
of its history, the standard dialect, which of all forms of 
spoken English approximates most nearly to the written 
language, has an absolute superiority to any other dialect 
of our language as a means of expression, excepting always 
some of the dialects of Scotland. At the same time, it may 
perhaps temper the enthusiasm of some to remind them 
that standard English is not nearly so uniform in its 
sounds or in its other characteristics as a superficial 
observer might imagine, and, further, that the standard 
varies considerably from generation to generation ; for 



THE NATURAL STARTING-POINT 25 

instance, much that was very ' good form 1 as recently as 
the end of the eighteenth century would now be considered 
6 vulgar ' or ' provincial ' even by speakers who are not over- 
fastidious. The pronunciations ' sarvanV ' goold ' (guld), 
'chaney tay-pof (tjeni tepot), and the frequent use of 
the pronoun 'em (am), may serve as examples of this fact 
in the meantime. 

The upshot of the foregoing remarks is that we may 
keep our natural preferences for this or that English 
dialect, but we must not ignore the fact that other dialects 
exist, and we should admit that it is not wise to abuse 
them, simply because they differ from the form that we 
ourselves use. 

It is very important for the student to recognise and 
observe differences in English speech, and to contrast and 
compare them. The problem of English philology lies 
within the differences and agreements of the various 
English dialects, and questions at issue are the origin, 
history, and mutual relations of these. 

Within the limits of such an investigation, questions 
arise which contain the germ of all comparative philology ; 
the methods pursued in dealing with the history of the 
English dialects are those which it is also desirable to 
pursue in considering the relations of the great Aryan 
families of languages. 

The study of the native tongue, beginning with its 
spoken forms, and proceeding thence to inquire into the 
why and wherefore of what exists, is therefore the best 
introduction to the advanced study of Aryan philology in 
its widest sense. All the principles of linguistic develop- 
ment, all the factors of evolution, exist ready for our 



26 INTRODUCTION 

observation in the living speech of our own English 
dialects; and while, as has been said, the discipline 
afforded by their study is a preparation for the larger 
science, it should be borne in mind that this study cannot 
be profitably pursued unless the same accuracy of method, 
and the same exactness of observation be applied in both 
cases, and, above all, unless the same scientific spirit and 
the same general conception of the life of language ani- 
mate all our inquiries. 



CHAPTER II 

THE SOUNDS OF SPEECH* 

Phonetics, or the science of speech sounds, involves a two- 
fold training — that of the ear to discriminate minute 
shades of difference in sound, and that of the vocal organs 
to reproduce these. The former is only gained by the 
repeated hearing of varieties of sound and a keen and 
patient observation ; the latter by a knowledge of the 
processes of articulation and a careful cultivation of the 
power of recognising the muscular sensations associated 
with the different movements and positions of the vocal 
organs in speech. 

This power of recognition, which is almost lacking in 
untrained persons, must be based, primarily, upon the 
observation of one's own speech. To gain the power to 
analyze and describe the movements of the vocal organs in 
uttering the most familiar sounds of our own language is 
to make the first steps in a real knowledge of scientific and 
practical phonetics. 

Anything like a complete treatise on phonetics would 
be out of place in such a work as this, and no more is here 
attempted than to give a brief outline of the classification 

* The letters placed in brackets in the following pages are the 
Phonetic Symbols of the sounds referred to. 

27 



28 THE SOUNDS OF SPEECH 

of speech sounds according to the Organic Method, as set 
forth in the system of Melville Bell, the author of Visible 
Speech, and made more scientific and exact by Mr. Sweet. 
For a full treatment of the subject the student may refer 
to Sweet's Primer of Phonetics (second edition), History of 
English Sounds, 1888, and to Sievers 1 Phonetik (fourth 
edition). The student will be well advised to approach 
the study of phonetics with the help of a teacher, and also 
to master one system thoroughly before coquetting with 
others, as the result of reading a series of treatises by 
different writers is usually to produce confusion of mind, 
no proper grasp of any system, and no gain in the control 
of the speech organs. 

The classification of speech sounds according to the 
organic system is based upon a consideration of the 
position and condition of those organs which produce the 
sounds. It is an axiom that the same sound can only be 
uttered in one way — that is, by a given mode of activity of 
a particular organ. If the position and the mode of 
activity be altered ever so little, a different sound is the 
result. The limit of discrimination of minute differences 
of position and sound is that of delicacy of ear and muscular 
sensation. 

The organs which play a part in the production of the 
sounds of speech are : The Lungs, from which the air- 
stream passes through the glottis, mouth, and nose ; the 
Diaphragm, the muscle which controls the volume and force 
of the air-stream ; the Glottis ; the Mouth cavity ; the 
Hard and Soft Palates ; the Nose ; the Tongue ; and the 
Lips. The Jaws are important, especially the movable 
lower jaw, since the tongue is raised or lowered in con- 



PRINCIPLES OF CLASSIFICATION 29 

junction with it ; and the teeth and gums, since they 
contribute to the formation of sounds, with the aid of the 
lips and tongue. 

We may consider briefly the activities of those organs of 
speech which can be moved at will. 

The Glottis contains the Vocal Chords, which can be 
either stretched across it so as to close it, or folded back 
so as to leave it completely open. 

In the former case, if the air be driven through, the 
vocal chords vibrate, as the air-stream forces its way 
between them. 

The sound caused by the air passing through the closed 
glottis, and setting up vibration in the vocal chords, is 
technically known as Voice. This vibration accompanies 
most vowels in ordinary ' loud'' speech, and a great number 
of consonants, such as z, v, and th in ' this ' (8). 

When the air- stream passes through the open glottis, 
and the chords do not vibrate, as in the ordinary sigh, the 
sound is known as Breath, as in s,f, th in ' think ' (]>). 

A third possibility is Whisper, in which the glottis is 
definitely contracted and narrowed, but the vocal chords 
are not tightened, and do not vibrate. 

The Soft Palate or Velum, from which the uvula depends, 
serves to open or close the nose passage, and probably also 
acts in sympathetic relation to certain movements of the 
tongue. 

The Uvula in certain sounds, such as the usual French r, 
trills against the back of the tongue, which in this case is 
raised. 

The Nose Passage is open in the so-called nasal sounds, 
such as the consonants n, m, ng (ij) in ' sing ' (sir)), or in 



30 THE SOUNDS OF SPEECH 

the nasalized vowels so frequent in French, as in ' bon 1 
(bo), 'fin 1 (fse), ' un ' (de), etc. In these cases the air- 
stream passes through the nose passage. In the nasal 
vowels the stream passes through mouth and nose at once, 
in 7i, m, only through the latter. 

In other than nasal sounds the nose passage is closed by 
the soft palate. 

The Tongue is, perhaps, the most important, as it 
certainly is the most active, of the vocal organs. 

The tongue can move chiefly in four ways : inwards and 
outwards — that is, it can be retracted or advanced ; up 
and down — that is, it can be raised or lowered. 

If the tongue be retracted or drawn back, the back 
part, or even the . root, is brought into play ; if it be 
advanced or thrust forwards towards the front teeth, the 
forward part or the tip comes into activity. 

In considering the raising or lowering of the tongue, we 
distinguish different degrees of Height, which, as we shall 
see, are of great significance in determining the sound of 
vowels. 

In addition to the direction of the movements of the 
tongue, we have also to take account of the particular 
part or area involved in uttering a given sound. 

Beginning from the back of the mouth, we distinguish 
the Root ; the Back ; the Front or Middle of the tongue ; 
the Blade, which is that portion which lies between the 
middle and the Point or tip ; and, lastly, the Point 
itself. 

Each of these areas functions in the production of 
speech sounds, and their several activities are associated 
with characteristic sounds. 



ACTIVITIES OF THE ORGANS OF SPEECH 31 

The Lips are the most easily observed of all the 
movable organs of speech. They may be drawn back 
from the teeth so as almost to expose these, as in French i 
in ' iini,'' or they may be protruded or pouted. The lips 
can function in the formation both of vowels and conso- 
nants ; in the former case they always act in conjunction 
with the tongue, in the latter they may act either in con- 
junction with the tongue, independently of any other 
organ, or by a combination of the lower lip and the upper 
teeth. 

Distinction between Vowels and Consonants. 

By a Consonant we understand a speech sound in which 
the air-stream is either completely stopped for a moment, 
as (b, d, g) (in ' good,'' etc.), or in the formation of which 
the passage is so far narrowed that there is a distinct friction 
set up as the air-stream passes out. 

In a true Vowel the air-passage is never sufficiently 
narrowed to produce such friction, although in the case of 
certain vowels, such as (i) or (u), the narrowing of the air- 
passage is so great that, under certain conditions, as when 
the air-stream is forced through with great vigour, an 
appreciable friction results. In this case the sound ceases 
to be a pure vowel sound, and becomes consonantal. In 
pronouncing such words as ' sea ' many speakers make the 
final vowel into a weak Open consonant, with a distinct 
'buzz? uttering (sij) instead of (si). 

It is best to begin the study of speech sounds with the 
consonants, as the positions of the vocal organs in pro- 
nouncing these sounds are more easily realized by the 
student. 



32 THE SOUNDS OF SPEECH 

The Classification of Consonants. 

In considering any given consonant, we have to deter- 
mine the following points : (A) The organ or organs with 
which the sound is formed, and, if the tongue be used, also 
the particular area which functions; (B) the mode of 
activity ; (C) whether the articulation is or is not accom- 
panied by Voice — that is, by vibration of the Vocal Chords. 

A. The Organs and Area. — From this point of view 
we have first of all to determine whether the particular con- 
sonant we are considering is formed in the Throat (by a 
contraction below the Glottis) ; by one of the areas of the 
Tongue already described — Back, Front, Blade, etc. ; by 
the Lips ; or by a combination of more than one organ, 
such as the Tongue and Lips. 

B. The Mode of Activity. — From this point of view we 
distinguish the following classes : 

(1) Open Consonants, in which the mouth passage is 
sufficiently narrowed to produce a very distinct friction, 
the air- stream, however, continuing to pass so long as the 
position is maintained and the air driven from the lungs. 
This friction may be made at any part of the passage along 
its whole length — below the glottis in the case of throat 
consonants, above the glottis by every part of the tongue, 
by the lips, or by approximating one of the lips to the 
teeth. Examples of open consonants are — ' ch ' in Scotch 
6 loch' (%), made between the Back of the Tongue and the 
Soft Palate (Back-Open) ; s (9) made between the Blade of 
the Tongue and the Hard Palate (Blade-Open) ; th (]?) in 
'think, 1 made between the Point of the tongue and the 
Teeth (Point-Teeth-Open) ; and so on. 



MODE OF FORMATION 33 

(2) Stops, or Stop Consonants, in which the passage is 
for a moment completely closed, and then suddenly opened, 
so that the air bursts forth with a certain puff. These are 
popularly called Explosives. This stopping of the passage 
may, like the narrowing in (1), be made right along the 
whole length of the passage. A few examples of stops are 
(k), made by Back of Tongue and Hard Palate (Back- 
Stop) ; English (t), made between Point of Tongue and 
Gums just behind upper teeth (Point-Stop) ; (p) made by 
the lips (Lip-Stop). 

(3) Nasal Consonants, which are formed, as has been 
already said, by allowing the air-stream to pass through 
the nose passage. In the case of the English nasal conso- 
nants the mouth-passage is always closed, so that (n) is 
really a nasalized (d) — that is, Point- (Stop) -Nasal; but 
any open consonant may also be nasalized, in which case 
the air passes through both nose and mouth at the same 
time. Besides w, English has m, formed by the lips (Lip- 
Nasal),and ng, as in 'sing' (rj, Back-Nasal), formed by the 
back of the tongue against the soft palate. Thus (m) is 
merely a nasalized (b), and (rj) a nasalized (g). 

(4) Divided or Side Consonants. — This class is chiefly 
typified by the /-sounds, which are made by the tongue 
forming a partial stoppage, in such a way as to permit the 
air-stream to escape on either side of the point of contact. 
English (1) is usually formed by the tongue in contact with 
the gums just behind the upper teeth, in exactly the same 
way as ordinary English (d), except that, whereas in this case 
the closure is complete, in that of (1) the edges of the tongue 
on either side of the point of contact are so far removed from 
the gums as to allow the air-stream to pass all the time in 

S 



34 THE SOUNDS OF SPEECH 

the manner just described. Some speakers, notably the 
Welsh, form contact with only one side of the tongue, so 
that the air passes out between the other side of the 
tongue and the gums or teeth. Hence the name Side 
consonant. This kind of Divided articulation can be 
carried out between any area of the tongue and the palate. 
Thus we have in some languages, e.g., Russian, a back- 
divided consonant — that is, an I formed with the same part 
of the tongue as that which forms the back-stop (g). 

(5) Trills. — This name explains itself, and the typical 
trilled sounds are the r-series. In Scotch r it is the 'point of 
the tongue which trills just behind the teeth ; in French r 
it is the Uvula which trills upon the back of the tongue. 
In Southern English there is normally no trill, no ' rolling ' 
of the r, the sound being usually some variety of weak point- 
open consonant. 

C. Voice and Breath. — These terms, which refer respec- 
tively to the activity and passivity of the vocal chords, 
have already been explained. The vibration of the vocal 
chords, which we call Voice, produces a very characteristic 
sound, sometimes called i buzz,'' and the vibration can easily 
be felt if the fingers are placed upon the ' Adairfs Apple ' 
while such sounds as (z, v, or $) are uttered with a certain 
loudness. Open consonants are the best for this purpose, 
because they can be prolonged to any extent — so long, 
indeed, as the supply of air from the lungs holds out. 

Each and every consonant position may be either 
accompanied by vibration of the vocal chords or the 
reverse ; that is to say, that every consonant may be either 
Voiced or un-Voiced. It does not follow that any given 
language possesses both voiced and voiceless varieties of all 
its consonants. Thus in English we have no entirely 



CONSONANTS IN NATURAL SERIES 



35 



voiceless Z, although this is common in Welsh, where it is 
expressed by 11, as in Llandudno, etc. ; while in German 
the voiced form of ' sh," as in ship ($), does not exist, and 
causes Germans great trouble, although it is frequent in 
French, where it is written fi j,' as in 'jamais'' (zamt), etc., 
and occurs also in English in such words as 'pleasure'' (pleza). 

One of the first exercises which the beginner should 
practise is that of unvoicing voiced, and voicing unvoiced 
consonants. This implies such control of the glottis that 
it can be consciously and deliberately opened and closed at 
will. When the student has thoroughly mastered this 
process, he will find that he has added considerably to his 
range of easily articulated sounds. 

In describing a consonantal sound it is usually only 
necessary to mention the fact when it is Voiced, it being 
assumed that such is not the case if nothing is said about 
it. Thus (g) is described as the back-stop -voice, while the 
corresponding Breath or Voiceless sound is described 
simply as back-stop. 

In studying the consonants it is convenient to take them 
in their natural series; thus, if we begin with the back 
consonants, we have the following table : 





Back (Voiced). 


Back (Voiceless). 


Open . . . 


2, as in Gm. sorg*e 


X, as in Scot, loch 


Stop ... 


g, as in gx)od 


k, as in car, or king 


Nasal... 


rj, as in sing* 


*)> — 


Divided 


t, as in Russ. (tojad), 
4 horse ' 


fc ~ 


Trill ... 


r, as in Fr. rendre 


r, as in Fr. francais 



3—2 



36 THE SOUNDS OF SPEECH 

The advantage of this method of practice is, that not 
only is it exhaustive, since it considers all the possible 
consonants — at least, in type — of the group, but it also 
impresses upon the student the natural relationship of 
consonants which are formed in the same part of the 
mouth, although in different ways ; and, further, if the 
sounds are practised in order, it helps to make him con- 
scious of the processes of articulation. 

The beginner starts with the familiar sounds of the 
series, and gradually learns the unfamiliar ones by acquiring 
the power to use his organs of speech in new ways. In 
the back-voice series only two of the series are familiar to 
most English speakers — (g) and (n) — but, taking these as a 
starting - point, the student, by closely observing his 
muscular sensations, so learns to form the Open and the 
Divided with the same part of the tongue which he uses in 
forming the Stop and the Nasal. The power of unvoicing 
depends upon the degree of control which the beginner has 
over his vocal chords. The back-trill will probably require 
considerable practice before it can be formed easily and 
perfectly, and without making faces. The student will 
find, as a rule, that the utterance of a new sound, the 
position for which he has only imperfectly mastered, 
has at first a peculiar ghastliness and hollo wness in 
the effect which it makes upon the ear. This is due 
to the fact that the organs of speech are in what is 
to them an unnatural position, which they cannot main- 
tain with ease — in fact, the performance is at first a 
clumsy one. 

It is important that teachers, at any rate, should acquire 
by practice the power of forming all the sounds with 



CLASSIFICATION OF VOWELS 37 

which they deal, clearly, easily, and with precision, as this 
gives confidence to the learner. 

Full tables of the consonants, and minute accounts of 
each variety, are given in the works by Sweet and Sievers 
mentioned above. 

The Vowels. 

There are four main points to be considered in the 
analysis of vowel sounds. The peculiar acoustic character 
of a vowel sound depends upon : A. The height of 
the tongue ; B. the part of the tongue which functions ; 
C. the degree of tenseness of the tongue ; D. the position 
of the lips. If we know these four points with regard to 
any particular vowel, and can put them into effect with 
our own vocal organs, then we can both pronounce the 
vowel ourselves, and so describe it that there can be no 
doubt as to the precise sound we mean. 

We will briefly consider the points in the above order. 

A. The Height of the Tongue. — We have already said 
that the tongue can be either raised or lowered. We 
distinguish three main degrees of Height — High, Mid, 
Low. Each of these positions may be taken by the 
back, the front, or the whole of the tongue. Thus we 
have a high-back, a mid-back, and a low-back vowel, and 
similarly with the front and mixed or flat vowels. 

B. The Part of the Tongue which Functions. — It has 
been already said that if the tongue be retracted the back 
part comes into play, and that if it be advanced the front 
is brought into activity. If the tongue be neither re- 
tracted nor advanced, but remain approximately fat in the 
mouth, then neither back nor front predominates, but the 



38 



THE SOUNDS OF SPEECH 



tongue is used along its whole length. From this point of 
view, therefore, we distinguish the possibilities : vowels 
made by the Back of the tongue — Back-vowels ; those 
made with the Front of the tongue — Front-vowels ; and 
vowels formed by the Whole of the tongue— Flat or Mixed 
vowels. A typical back vowel in English is the (a) in 
' father ' (f«Sa), a front is the (I) in c see ' (si), and a mixed 
or flat vowel is the vowel in bird (bXd). To realize the 
backward and forward movement of the tongue, the 
student may pronounce in a whisper, or articulate silently, 
the sound (u) (as in ' boot '), and (I) (as in ' see '), or, better, 
the French u (y) in 'lune' alternately, (u-y, u-y, u-y), 
several times, when he will at once become conscious of 
the sawing backwards and forwards movements. 

The front -slack series is the best for the beginner to 
practise, to realize the height of the tongue ; because most 
Southern English speakers have all three vowels in their 
normal pronunciation of English. 

The following series should be pronounced in order, care 
being taken to observe the gradual lowering of the front 
of the tongue, and the gradual sinking of the lower jaw. 





Front. 


High 

Mid 

Eow ... 


(i) in hit 

(e) in btft 

(ae) in hat 



The low-front vowel is a great difficulty to Scotch and 
North of England speakers, who, as a rule, do not possess 



TENSE AND SLACK CONDITIONS OF THE TONGUE 30 

it in the sounds of their natural speech, but must acquire 
it with great trouble and patience. Such speakers substi- 
tute a back vowel, a variety, only short, of the first vowel 
in 'father. 1 This particular difficulty is one which the 
uninformed 'imitation' method hardly ever overcomes, 
and many people are irretrievably branded as 6 provincial ' 
speakers in consequence of their failure to acquire the 
standard English sound. This is not the expression of a 
supercilious sense of superiority (there is no particular 
ethical merit about the low -front vowel), but merely a 
statement of a scientific fact concerning the dialects of 
Modern English. 

C. The Degree of Tenseness of the Tongue. — For prac- 
tical purposes it is sufficient to distinguish a tense and a 
slack condition of the tongue. The muscular sensation 
which characterizes each may be experienced by pro- 
nouncing alternately, and contrasting the accompanying 
sensations, ee (I) in 6 see ' and i (i) in ' sit, 1 or French e (e) 
in ' ete ' with English e (t) in * bet.' 

The tongue may be either tense or slack while occupying 
any or all of the before-mentioned positions, so that we 
have a high-front-tense, a high-front-slack ; high-back-tense, 
high-back -slack, and so on throughout all the vowels of 
every series, back, front, and fat. 

It should be noted that Mr. Sweet generally uses the 
terms narrow = tense, and wide = slack, and these terms 
are probably quite as much used by phoneticians as tense 
and slack ; unfortunately, however, some writers, but imper- 
fectly acquainted with the principles and terminology of 
the Organic System, have been so far misled by ' narrow , 
and ' wide ' as to understand them to refer to the narrow- 



40 THE SOUNDS OF SPEECH 

ing or widening of the mouth passage by raising or 
lowering the tongue. In other words, they have confused 
' narrowness, 1 which merely means tenseness when applied 
to vowels, with Height, and have gathered that the vowel 
(i) in ' bit,"* which Mr. Sweet would call the high-Jront-wide, 
is intermediate in position between (I) in ' see ' and (e) in 
' ete7 than which nothing is more false. 

The important thing for the beginner is thoroughly to 
understand the terminology which he uses, and to be able 
to realize by his muscular sensations the processes of which 
it is descriptive. On the whole, perhaps, tense and slack 
are to be preferred to narrow and wide, as being more 
definitely descriptive of the facts. 

D. The Position of the Lips. — The action of the lips is 
obviously quite independent of that of the tongue, so that, 
no matter how the latter is being employed, the lips may 
be either passive, whether slightly parted or drawn back 
so as to leave the air-stream an unhindered exit, or they 
may be more or less brought forward or pouted so as to 
muffle, to a greater or less extent, the air-stream after it 
passes the teeth. 

This pouting or bringing together of the lips is technically 
known as Rounding, and a vowel thus formed is called a 
Round or Rounded vowel. 

When the student has mastered the processes of retract- 
ing and advancing, raising and lowering the tongue at 
pleasure, he should pass with equal assiduity to that of 
rounding and unrounding ; that is, he should pronounce a 
vowel sound — for instance, (i) {high-front-tense) — endeavour 
to feel the position of the tongue, and then, while being 
careful to maintain this unaltered, he should prolong the 



ROUNDED VOWELS 41 

vowel, and alternately advance and retract ips. The 

rounding' of (i) results in (y) (high-front-tense-round), 
which is the sound of French u in ' &urj 6 but,'' 6 \uj etc. 
This sound, which often presents great difficulties to 
English people, may often be perfectly acquired in a few 
minutes by the above simple experiment. The same 
acoustic effect may be produced by forming a small circle 
with the finger and thumb, and pronouncing (i) through 
this, when the effect, if the aperture be sufficiently small, 
will at once be (y), which, perhaps, the student has long 
tried in vain to pronounce. It should be noted that the 
degree of rounding — that is, of the smallness of the aper- 
ture — is normally related to the height of the tongue, so that 
in most languages high vowels have the greatest, and low 
vowels the least degree of rounding. But languages some- 
times develop vowels in which the rounding is abnormal — 
high vowels with the slighter rounding generally associated 
with mid or low vowels, or low or mid vowels with a 
greater amount of rounding than is usual to those degrees 
of height. In the former case we speak of under -rounding, 
in the latter we say that the vowel is over-rounded. 

Examples of the latter process are found in Swedish 
long o, mid-back-tense, with over-rounding, which to 
foreign ears sounds like (u), and in the German ii, which 
is the mid-front-tense, with over-rounding, the acoustic 
effect being identical with that of French (y) to untrained 
ears. An example of an under-rounded vowel is heard in 
the Lancashire sound of the vowel in 'bush, 1 'butcher,' 
etc. (mid-back-tense, under-rounded). 

In describing a vowel, the four points above discussed are 
mentioned in the order in which we have dealt with them. 



42 THE SOUNDS OF SPEECH 

If there be no rounding, it is usually unnecessary to mention 
the action of the lips, it being assumed that these play no 
part in the particular sound unless the rounding be stated. 

Thus (u) in ' boot ' is the high-back -tense-round ; the (a) 
in ' father ' the mid-back-slack. 

From the above account it will be seen that there are 
thirty-six main normal vowels : three back, three front, 
and three flat or mixed vowels, according to the height of 
the tongue — that is, nine positions ; the sounds associated 
with each of these positions are further increased by another 
nine, giving eighteen, according to whether the tongue be 
tense or slack ; and, lastly, every tense and every slack vowel 
may be rounded, bringing the number up to thirty-six. 

Shifted Vowels. — Mr. Sweet, in the second edition of 
his Primer of Phonetics, has recently pointed out that it 
is possible, while using the back of the tongue, to shift 
the raised part forward, so that the air-passage is narrowed 
further forward than in the case of the normal vowels, 
where the narrowing takes places between the tongue and 
that part of the palate immediately above the area of 
activity. Similarly, in articulating front vowels, the 
tongue may be drawn back, so the area of articulation is 
further back in the palate, although the front of the 
tongue is still used. The character of these 4 shifted ' 
vowels is, according to Mr. Sweet's view, sufficiently dis- 
tinct from that of vowels formed in normal manner to 
justify the former being classified as distinct sounds. This 
brings the number of well-marked, distinct vowel sounds 
up to seventy-two. Many of the Modern English dialects 
contain 'shifted'' vowels, which it is very difficult to 
locate, unless this possibility be remembered. 



MINUTE SHADES OF SOUND 43 

Intermediate Varieties of Vowel Sounds. — It must be 
borne in mind that the above enumeration and tabulating 
of vowels according to the Organic System only deals with 
the chief, distinctive types. Thus (i) (high-front) is quite 
distinct from (e) (mid-front), both to the ear and to the 
muscular sense, but it is possible to lower the tongue 
gradually from the high position to one which produces a 
sound different from the typical vowel associated with that 
position, but not yet fully a mid vowel. In such a case 
we should have to determine whether the position was, as 
a matter of fact, nearer to the high or the mid. In the 
former case we should classify the vowel as a high vowel 
lowered ; in the latter, as a mid vowel raised. 

These intermediate positions occur in all languages, 
especially in dialects. In Danish the ordinary (e) (mid- 
front) is so far raised towards the high position that the 
effect it produces upon the ear of a foreigner at the first 
hearing is almost that of (I). In many Scotch dialects the 
high -front -slack vowel is considerably lowered, almost to 
the position of the mid-front (e), and the mid-front is also 
lowered almost to (se). So alike is the Scotch (i) in ' bit ' 
to the English (e) in 6 bet , that, unless the mid-front were 
also proportionately lowered, the two sounds would be 
confused. As a rule, language shrinks from having two 
distinct vowels so closely alike as (i) lowered, and normal (e) 
at one and the same period — if one is lowered the other is 
lowered too. 

In English there is a tendency, at any rate among 
speakers of standard English, to avoid these lowered 
vowels altogether, and to pronounce the normal high and 
mid vowels. This gives to the standard dialect a certain 



44 THE SOUNDS OF SPEECH 

clearness and distinctness which is often lacking in the 
pronunciation of other dialects. 

Glides. — In ordinary speech the vocal organs, especially 
the tongue, frequently have to assume, in rapid succession, 
a series of positions which are very different, and com- 
paratively far removed one from the other, as one sound 
after another is uttered by the speaker. To get from one 
position to another, the organs move with great rapidity, 
and these movements are called glides. It sometimes 
happens that the passage of the organs from one position 
to another results in audible sounds. The sounds are called 
glide sounds, and sometimes also, merely glides. 

We may distinguish : (1) Glides produced as the organs 
pass from repose to activity — that is, when beginning to 
speak ; (2) those due to the organs passing from one mode 
of activity to another — these occur during the utterance 
of words or word-series ; (3) the movements of the organs 
in passing from a state of activity to one of repose — that 
is, when pausing or ceasing to speak. 

Glides are very important to the student of language, 
for they not only are very characteristic of any actually 
spoken language, but in the history of a language they 
often develop into independent sounds. 

To illustrate these two points. It makes all the difference 
to the pronunciation of French whether a foreigner, 
especially an Englishman, has acquired the proper glides 
after the voiceless stops, p, t, k. In French, when these 
sounds are followed by a vowel, the voicing begins before 
the stop is opened, so that the latter part of the consonant 
is rarely voiced. In English and German, on the other 
hand, after voiceless stops, the vocal chords are not closed 



GLIDES 45 

until the stops have been opened, so that there is a slight 
puff of breath between the stop and the following vowel. A 
glide after a sound is called an Off-glide, so that we say that 
in French there is a Voice off-glide after voiceless stops, but 
in English a Breath off-glide. To show how important 
glides are in the development of language, we may instance 
the process known as Fracture, or Brechung, in O.E. In 
primitive O.E. such a form as *wld ('old') became *ceuld in 
the South, by the development of the glide between the 
front vowel as and the following -Id into a full vowel. This 
primitive ecu subsequently became cea, written ea, in eald 
from % add, beald from % boeld, etc. The other Germanic 
languages and some of the English dialects developed 
no vowel from the off-glide in these cases, so that at the 
present day we have old from an Anglian aid (late Anglian), 
and in High German alt. 

The whole subject of glides demands the special atten- 
tion of the student, and he must study the phenomena 
in his own speech, aided by the special phonetic treatises ; 
but enough has, perhaps, been said here to make the term 
and the ideas connected with it intelligible in subsequent 
references in the present work. 

Accent. 

Under this head are often included two quite distinct 
phenomena — Stress or Emphasis, and Intonation. 

Stress depends upon the degree of force with which the 
air-stream is expelled from the lungs. An increase of force 
in the air-stream causes increased loudness in the case 
of vowels and all voiced sounds. 

We distinguish three chief degrees of stress — Strong, 



46 THE SOUNDS OF SPEECH 

Medium, Weak. These terms are, of course, purely relative. 
When a word consists of several syllables, various degrees 
of stress are exhibited in its pronunciation. Thus in such a 
word as ' perceptible, the strongest stress is on the second 
syllable, the weakest on the first, the next weakest on the 
third, and the second strongest on the fourth. The 
tendency is to alternate strong and weak stress. When 
we speak of the stressed syllable of a word, we mean the 
syllable which has the chief, or strongest, stress. When 
we say that a syllable is unstressed we mean that it has the 
weakest stress : some force it must have, otherwise it would 
be inaudible, and would disappear altogether. The dis- 
appearance of very weakly stressed syllables is a frequent 
phenomenon in the history of language. In Modern 
English certain words are differently stressed, according to 
the sentence in which they occur. Thus the auxiliary 
6 have ' occurs in the forms (haev) with strong stress, (hav) 
with weaker stress, (v) when completely unstressed. Com- 
pare the sentences : (wea h£v ]u bin ? wear (h)av )u bin ? 
ai v bin in landan). 

As regards the distribution of stress, we can distinguish 
three varieties — Increasing-, Even, and Diminishing stress. 
In English the highest point of stress in an emphatic 
syllable is the beginning, from which point the force in a 
monosyllabic word is diminished. In the distribution of 
stress over a word of several syllables, or over a breath- 
group — that is, the whole series of syllables uttered with 
one breath — the force is usually varied during the utter- 
ance by alternately increasing and diminishing the air- 
stream. 

Even stress implies that the degree of force is maintained 



ACCENT— QUANTITY 47 

constant throughout the utterance. This never actually 
happens in English, since in the single syllable the stress is 
decreased so that it gets weaker and weaker, and if, as 
happens comparatively rarely, two succeeding syllables 
have an equal amount of stress, the second is uttered with 
a fresh impulse of the breath, as in plum cake (plam kt'ik), 
John Jones (dzon dzounz). 

Stress is an important factor in determining syllable 
division. 

Intonation is a question of pitch. Alterations of pitch 
in speech are produced by tightening the vocal chords for 
a high tone, loosening or shortening them for a low 
tone. 

We have Rising Intonation, as in the interrogative, 
sharply-uttered ' what T Falling Intonation, as in the 
negative reply to a question — ' no !' Fall and Rise is heard 
in the warning or expostulatory ' take care !' uttered 
with a certain impatience ; Rise and Fall in the con- 
temptuous or supercilious ' oh !' These combined tones 
are of importance in the history of language, but they 
cannot easily be studied except with the aid of oral 
instruction. 

It should be noted that every speaker naturally pitches 
his voice on a certain note as his normal pitch ; every tone 
which he utters above this is a rise, every one below it is a 
fall. The degree of rise and fall which takes place in 
speech is different in, and very characteristic of, different 
languages or dialects. 

Quantity. — This, again, is a relative term ; long vowels 
in some languages are shorter than in others. Differences 
of quantity exist in consonants also. In English, final 



48 THE SOUNDS OF SPEECH 

voiced consonants are long compared to those of German. 
Contrast, for instance, the final n of English ' man, 1 and 
German ' mann.' 

It is important to distinguish between a long and a 
double consonant. The latter class are heard in Swedish, 
Italian, and many other languages. They even occur in 
English in such compounds as l book-case." In a double 
consonant the position of the vocal organs is maintained 
for a certain space of time, and a new impulse of breath 
is given in the middle, whereas in a long consonant there is 
no fresh impulse of breath during the maintenance of the 
position. A further possibility is to utter the same 
consonant twice — that is, with two off-glides. This is occa- 
sionally heard from very self-conscious and affected speakers 
in English, who are trying to 6 talk fine." 1 ' This hill has a 
flat top ' would normally bo pronounced (Sis hil haez a 
flaettop), with no escape of breath between the t of flat and 
that of top ; the affected pronunciation referred to would 
be (flaet top), with an off- glide after each t, before the new 
impulse of breath. It is to be observed that there is no 
necessary connection between the quantity and the quality 
of vowels; that is to say, that any vowel may be pro- 
nounced either long or short. In English tense (i) only 
occurs long, but in French it is usually quite short. 
Again, the mid-front-slack (e) is always short in English 
at the present time in the standard language, but many of 
the dialects have (i), which is also common in French, as 
in ' bete ' (btt), etc. 

Syllable Division. — The essential characteristic of a 
syllable is that there is no sense of break or interruption 
to destroy its unity. Anything which causes a break in 



SYLLABLE DIVISION 40 

continuity produces a sense of duality, and tends to 
destroy the unity of the syllable. 

The interruption of the unity of a syllable may be 
caused in various ways : 

1. By alternation of strong and weak stress. So long 
as the stress is even or gradually diminishing, a vowel 
may be prolonged indefinitely without producing upon 
the ear the sense of discontinuity. But if we pronounce 
a very long vowel, such as (a), and alternately increase 
and diminish the stress, we at once break it up into as 
many syllables as there are increases and decreases : 
(a- a- a- a- a- a), and so on. 

2. By alternating greater and lesser sonority. The 
vowel (a) is more sonorous than (i), because the mouth 
passage is wider when pronouncing it, and consequently a 
bigger volume of voice can pass through. If, therefore, we 
alternate (a-i-a-i-a) — that is, first strong, then weak, then 
strong sonority — we cannot escape the sense of as many 
syllables as there are increases after reductions of sonority. 

In a true diphthong, such as {at), as in English ' bite,' 
we have, it is true, a gradual reduction of sonority and of 
stress ; but the sense of unity is not lost, because the 
reduction is so gradual, and because the second vowel 
loses its syllabicness by virtue of its lack of sonority as 
compared with the preceding («), which also bears the 
stress. A true diphthong may be defined as a combina- 
tion of two vowels, of which only one is syllabic, the 
other having neither stress nor sonority in comparison, 
and being therefore non-syllabic. 

3. The interruption of continuity may be produced by 
the air-stream being either very considerably hindered, 

4 



50 THE SOUNDS OF SPEECH 

through the narrowing of the mouth passage, as by an 
Open Consonant, or altogether checked for a moment, as by 
a Stop Consonant. The presence of a consonant between 
two vowels, since it breaks the continuity more or less 
completely, must of necessity produce two syllables. 

The Limits of the Syllable.* — A syllable ends when the 
weakest degree of stress is reached, and the next begins 
with the fresh increase. Thus in England we pronounce 
the name of the famous University and golfing city of Fife- 
shire, St. Andrews, as (sent sendruz), but in Scotland itself 
the universal pronunciation is (sen tandruz) ; that is, we 
continue to diminish the stress until the off-glide of the t, 
whereas the Scotch reach their weakest stress with the n. 

Phonetic Symbols. 

A few remarks upon the use of a phonetic transcription 
will not be out of place here. 

The Organic symbols are, of course, by far the most accu- 
rate, since they are not mere arbitrary alphabetic signs, but 
are intended to express the actual positions of the organs 
of speech, the presence or absence of breath, of rounding, 
of nasality, and so on. But it is admitted that they are 
cumbersome, and for the transcription of words and 
sentences a simpler notation can be used with advantage. 
Sweet's Broad Romic is a convenient system of symbols which 
is widely used, and the International alphabet is employed 
by Passy, Lloyd, Vietor, and many other phoneticians. 

After all, any alphabet is a mere convention, and pro- 
vided we know what soimds we intend to express, the 

* For a clear and admirable treatment of Quantity, Syllable 
Division, Stress, and Intonation, cf. Jespersen, Lehrbuch der Phonetik, 
1904, pp. 173-240. 



USE OF PHONETIC SYMBOLS 51 

simpler the method of graphic expression the better. In 
dealing with a single language, or a limited series of 
sounds, it is best first to define in the terminology of the 
organic system the value of the symbols commonly em- 
ployed in the ordinary spelling of the language in ques- 
tion, and then to adopt some familiar symbol to express 
the sound whenever it occurs. Thus, if we know that 
French u in c but," * vu," etc., is the high-front- tense-round, 
we may use any recognised symbol we choose to express 
it, provided our employment of the symbol be consistent. 
Thus ii, y would both serve the purpose. If we have 
defined u or y as = Mgh-front-bense-rowid when tran- 
scribing French, there is no reason why the same symbol 
should not be used to express a different sound in our 
transcription of another language which does not possess 
h-f-t-r. In Russian, for instance, it is often convenient to 
use y for the high-flat-tense, since in that language h-f-t-r 
does not occur. 

This economic principle of using the same symbol for 
different sounds in different languages has the advantage 
of avoiding the inconvenience of mastering seventy-two 
perfectly arbitrary symbols for the vowels, many of which 
we may never need at all. In oral teaching, when demon- 
strating on the blackboard, and in scientific treatises, 
Sweet's organic symbols for the vowels are exceedingly 
convenient, since they are easily mastered and are per- 
fectly definite in significance. It is useful when writing 
to be able to express with a single symbol such facts as 
the exact position of the tongue and lips, thus conveying 
precisely the shade of sound which we are dealing with. 
Otherwise we must, in exact discussion, use the cumbersome 

4—2 



52 



THE SOUNDS OF SPEECH 



' high-front-tense-round,' which we may, however, shorten 
as above to h-f-t-r, and so on with all the other vowels. 

The symbol T, really a pointer indicating direction, is 
useful in conjunction with alphabetic signs. T means lower- 
ing of the tongue, J_ raising, h- advancing, and H retrac- 
tion. Thus if (e) be the symbol for the normal mid-front- 
slack, (e T) would indicate the lowered Scotch variety. 

Tables of Phonetic Symbols for Consonants 
and Vowels used in this Book. 

THE CONSONANTS. 





Back. 


Front. 


Blade. 


Blade- 
point. 


Point. 




<6 
"o 

> 


+3 

c3 


'o 

> 




6 
.3 
'© 

> 




.2 
'o 
> 


rd 

c3 
a> 


O 

'o 


Open ... 
Stop ... 
Nasal ... 
Divided 


h 
k 


s 
g 

i 


j 

c 


j 

g 


s 


Z 


/ 


Z 


t 

n 

o 

1 


3 
d 

n 

1 





Lip. 


Lip-teeth. 


Lip-back. 


Breath. 


Voice. 


Breath. 


Voice. 


Breath. 


Voice. 


Open 
Stop 

Nasal 
Divided ... 


P 

m 


b 

m 


f 


v 


w 


w 



CQ 

£ g 

P O 



5? 



o 

CQ 



"c3 


i, Scot, dial, 
bulk 

a, Eng. bird 


a 

pp 


-to 
1 P° 1 

H 

C3 


•+-5 
fl 
o 
u 


"g 'So 

^ O 

03 i — i 

:J fl *-< 




B a* d 




Is 

1 1 1 


o 
cS 

pq 


oh 


-(-5 
PI 

p 


'oh bh g° 
H h W 









p 

o 





1 1 1 


o 

cq 


g ^ &ct2 
w o o ^ 

WOc« OH pq 
3 cT 


-(-3 
Pi 
o 

Sh 


H 




b a" J 


o3 


l l 1 


o 

PQ 


H OH 
3 cT cT 


•+-5 
o 


1 1 1 




W § H 



54 THE SOUNDS OF SPEECH 

In order not to multiply symbols beyond what is abso- 
lutely necessary, (h) will be used initially in phonetic 
transcription to express the ordinary ' aspirate" of Modern 
English ; medially and finally it indicates a back-open- 
voiceless consonant, (r) is not included in the above table ; 
English r in the South is a weak point-teeth-open consonant, 
in Scotch it is a point-trill, in French a back-trill. In 
some of the English dialects of the South and Midlands it 
is an inverted consonant — i.e., an open consonant formed 
by the point of the tongue turned upwards and backwards. 

c, g are habitually written at the present day in the 
ordinary spelling of O.E. to indicate fronted sounds ; the 
latter is generally pronounced as a front-open consonant in 
O.E., as in giefan, 6 give." When used in the special way 
indicated above, all symbols are in this book enclosed in 
brackets ; thus giefan would be (jievan), etc. 

Length is marked by a stroke above the letter — a, a, etc. 
A vowel symbol which is not thus marked is intended to 
express a short sound, and shortness is otherwise not 
specially indicated as a rule. The symbol " placed over a 
vowel implies nasalization, as in Fr. (kotd) content. 

Forms placed in brackets are intended to express the 
pronunciation, according to the above table of symbols. 
The ordinary spelling is either in italics or in inverted 
commas — e.g., 'hot' (hot), 'father' (faSa). 

It will be observed that the slack vowels are represented 
by italic letters, except in the cases of (e), (b), and (as), 
which are well known, and convenient ; the symbols for 
the tense vowels are all romic. Italic letters, therefore, 
enclosed in brackets always indicate slack, and romic 
always tense vowels. 



CHAPTER III 

HOW LANGUAGE IS ACQUIRED AND HANDED ON 

One of the most familiar incidents of daily life is that of 
a child learning to speak. It is an experience which every 
normal human being has undergone in his own person, 
although the memory of the first steps is lost long before 
the process is nearly complete. The infant slowly learns 
to utter a few intelligible sounds in his native tongue 
from those who surround him — his parents, his nurse, his 
brothers and sisters. He learns by imitation to reproduce, 
at first very imperfectly, the sounds which he hears, and 
by constant repetition on the part of his first teachers, 
accompanied by explanatory gestures, such as pointing to 
a person or a thing, or performing an action while utter- 
ing its name, he gradually comes to connect the uttered 
sound with the person, the object, or the action which 
it symbolizes. 

Those who in after-life acquire a foreign language in 
the country itself, or among native speakers, nurses, 
governesses, etc., in their own country, to a certain extent 
repeat the process whereby they originally learnt their 
own language. This is undoubtedly the most direct and 
natural way of mastering a language, and, supplemented 
later on by the artificial aids of grammar and dictionary, 

55 



56 HOW LANGUAGE IS ACQUIRED AND HANDED ON 

it gives a grip of the genius of a foreign tongue, and 
forms the speech instinct in a way that no other method 
can accomplish. It is a remarkable fact, when we reflect 
upon the difficulties which in later life beset the learning of 
a new language, especially the new pronunciation, that 
within a few years the child acquires with perfect exact- 
ness, in all normal cases, the pronunciation of those speakers 
from whom he learns his native language. Of course, 
there are cases of inherent defective utterance, in which 
certain sounds remain difficult or even impossible to pro- 
nounce perfectly to the end of the life of the speaker. It 
is also true, as we shall see, that no two speakers of the 
same community or the same family do, in all respects, 
pronounce exactly alike. Still, the fact remains that 
after a few years the child can and does, to all intents 
and purposes, reproduce the pronunciation of the circle in 
which he is brought up, with so great a degree of fideli ty, 
that his pronunciation is felt by everyone to be identical 
with that upon which it is based — the speech of his family 
and closest intimates. It would appear that this power 
of learning by imitation pure and simple is, as a rule, 
limited to the sounds of the mother-tongue, or at most to 
one or two other languages which are acquired in early 
childhood. 

To understand the reason of this we must inquire more 
closely what are the processes which actually come into 
play in the utterance of speech sounds. 

First of all the organs of speech perform certain move- 
ments, in order to get into the position necessary for the 
production of the sound to be uttered. This series of 
movements, and this position, which is maintained for a 



MEMORY-PICTURES OF SOUND AND POSITION 57 

certain time, gives rise to characteristic muscular sensa- 
tions. Then the sound is uttered, and this, again, produces 
a definite physical sensation upon the auditory nerves. 
These muscular sensations and this auditory experience 
are the physiological processes involved in each utterance 
of a sound. But this is not all ; each nervous impression 
is recorded in the consciousness, and goes to form what 
may be called memory -pictures. In the utterance of a 
speech sound memory - pictures are formed — (a) of the 
sound itself, (b) of the muscular sensations arising from 
the movements of the vocal organs into the required 
position, and of a certain characteristic tension required 
to maintain the position during the utterance of the sound. 
That is to say, that in addition to the memory-picture of 
sound, there are also formed memory-pictures of the move- 
ment series and of the position. These memory-pictures 
of sound, movements, and position, are the psychological 
processes which accompany the utterance of every speech 
sound. These memory-pictures are formed unconsciously, 
but until they are formed it is impossible to reproduce a 
speech sound. This is why a child only slowly acquires 
the power to reproduce the sounds of his mother- tongue. 
The first mental picture formed is that of the sound itself, 
as heard from others. Then there is a tentative groping 
to reproduce it, but the necessary series of organic move- 
ments, and the position, have generally to be learnt, as the 
results of many mistaken attempts. Thus, when a child 
substitutes a point-stop (t) for a back-stop (k), and says, 
for instance, (tzs) for (kis), it is probable that he can 
discriminate between the two sounds when he hears them ; 
but his inability to do so in his own speech is due to the 



58 HOW LANGUAGE IS ACQUIRED AND HANDED ON 

fact that he has not yet learned to form a stop with the 
back of his tongue, although he can do so with the point. 
The movement of retracting the tongue, and the position 
of the tongue pressed against the soft palate are un- 
familiar, and have to be acquired by experiment. When 
once the unaccustomed movements have been performed, a 
faint mental picture is recorded, which makes the next 
utterance easier. With each repeated carrying out of a 
series of movements the memory-picture becomes clearer 
and more definite, until at last, the series being faithfully 
and definitely imprinted upon the memory, it can be repro- 
duced accurately at will. The memory-picture of the sound 
is often more distinct, because the sound is heard not only 
from our own pronunciation, in which it gradually becomes 
associated with those of the movements and position, but 
also frequently in the pronunciation of others. Whereas, 
then, the sound-picture is made stronger by hearing other 
speakers, the movement and position pictures can only be 
made clearer by our own pronunciation of the sound. The 
sound-picture sometimes remains clear when the position- 
picture has become blurred, and faint from lack of habit 
in uttering the sound, in which case the former helps 
to correct and reconstruct the latter, because the result of 
our attempts at pronunciation does not satisfy our recol- 
lection of the sound. ■ 

It may be noted here that it is impprtant not to allow 
those who are learning a foreign language to. get into the 
habit of wrong pronunciation ; since each repeated utter- 
ance of the wrong sound makes the memory-picture of 
the movements and position clearer and deeper, and there- 
fore increasingly difficult to eradicate. Teachers who 



FORMATION OF SPEECH HABITS 59 

trust to imitation alone in imparting a foreign pronuncia- 
tion, often repeat the desired sound hundreds of times with 
little result, the reason being that while the pupil's correct 
sound - picture may indeed be strengthened, the wrong 
position-picture remains uncorrected, and becomes clearer 
and more imperishable each time the same mistake in 
pronunciation is made. Thus a discrepancy often arises 
between the memory-picture of the sound and that of 
the process of reproducing it. It is this existence of the 
memory-pictures of the sounds and positions which occur 
in our own language, and which we have strengthened for 
years by daily habit, that makes it so difficult to form 
fresh memory-pictures in later life. Our speech habit 
has become inveterate, and we cannot easily acquire a 
different one. 

With the young child the case is different. His mental 
and bodily habits are of recent formation, his speech 
basis is not fixed ; he can easily change it, or form a new 
set of memory-pictures, both of sounds and of physical 
movements : hence he can more readily acquire the sounds 
of a foreign language than the adult. 

The complex processes of utterance, even those involved 
in producing the sounds of our mother-tongue, are for 
the most part quite unrealized by the speaker. The 
series of memory-pictures graven upon the consciousness 
give rise to the familiar series of movements and positions, 
and to the sounds associated with them, and yet we are 
unaware both of the psychological and of the physiological 
part of the process. A phonetic training involves learning 
to realize and recognise both of these aspects of utterance. 
We have to bring the mental pictures and the resultant 



60 HOW LANGUAGE IS ACQUIRED AND HANDED ON 

movements and positions from the plane of unconscious- 
ness or subconsciousness to that of full consciousness. 
Most people, as soon as they think about the subject, can 
realize mentally, the series of movements which are neces- 
sary to the pronunciation of many of the familiar conso- 
nants, such as p, t, and even Jc, though this is more 
difficult, without (even silently) going through the actual 
movements themselves. But most untrained experimenters 
will probably find, at first, that they are unable to realize 
at all, the series of movements required for the pro- 
nunciation of even such familiar vowel sounds as (I), as in 
4 bee ' (bi), or (5), as in ' saw ' (s5). To assist in bringing the 
familiar but unrealized processes of pronunciation into the 
realms of definite consciousness, the beginner may be 
recommended to pronounce some familiar sound aloud 
several times, concentrating his attention upon the move- 
ments which the vocal organs instinctively perform ; then 
to ; whisper ' the sound, still closely observing the move- 
ments ; then to go through the series of movements silently, 
not even uttering the sound in a ' whisper '; and finally to 
reproduce the series mentally, without carrying out the 
movements at all. It will be seen that such an exercise 
can only be carried out with sounds which are perfectly 
familiar, and which the vocal organs can produce in- 
stinctively through the existence of a clear (although 
subconscious) memory - picture. It follows that the 
necessary and proper basis for phonetic training is the 
careful study of the mother- tongue, and of that particular 
form of it which we naturally and habitually use. Thus 
it would be an unsound method for a dialect speaker, or 
one whose pronunciation was strongly coloured by a c pro- 



THE PHONETIC CONSCIENCE Gl 

vincial accent/ to begin the scientific study of sounds by 
considering first of all the sounds of some ideal ' standard'' 
of English speech which were quite unfamiliar, and which 
he would almost certainly not reproduce accurately. This 
is especially true of Scotch speakers, who, even if they 
do not speak ' broad Scotch? have in nearly all cases a 
strongly-marked Scotch speech basis, for which there are, 
of course, good historical reasons. It cannot be too 
strongly insisted upon that the student must cultivate a 
''phonetic conscience? and study the sounds of his own 
natural speech as they are, without attempting to change 
them or 6 fake ' them in any way. They are the only 
sounds which he is an absolute master of, which he makes 
instinctively and without taking thought, and they are 
therefore the only sounds upon which he can properly begin 
his observations. When he is able to analyze the mental 
and physical processes involved in his own natural pro- 
nunciation, the student can proceed, being now a master 
of the power of analysis, and having gained some conscious 
control of his vocal organs, to practise new series of move- 
ments, and thus to acquire new sounds. 

From the above considerations, the reason for our 
reiterated insistence upon the importance of our own form 
of speech as the basis of scientific linguistic study will, 
perhaps, become more apparent. Anyone who has gone 
through the somewhat difficult mill of systematic linguistic 
training can but smile at the arguments adduced against 
beginning with the native dialect by those who are com- 
pletely innocent of any real knowledge of what is aimed 
at, or of the methods whereby it ajone can be achieved. 

The fact that tlie processes of speech utterance are 



62 HOW LANGUAGE IS ACQUIRED AND HANDED ON 

naturally unconscious is an important one, in view of the 
bearing which, as we shall see hereafter, it has upon 
the question of sound change. This fact can readily be 
ascertained by any beginner who tries to realize mentally, 
in the manner suggested above, how he produces any vowel 
sound which is familiar to him in his own pronunciation 
of English. Such an attempt will at once bring the truth 
of the foregoing statement home to the student in the 
most convincing manner. It is, however, just one of 
those essential general principles, an ignorance of which 
renders unreal and fruitless any discussion of the important 
question of sound change, and of the closely allied con- 
ception of phonetic law. 

It is probably the too exclusive study of the literary 
form of language which fosters the view, so often taught, 
or at least implied in the teaching given, that speech 
is deliberate and conscious, and that the speaker, even 
when talking naturally and untrammelled by conventional 
models, definitely intends to pronounce in a certain way, 
which he elects to use rather than another. 

In writing, the whole process is fraught with a certain 
deliberation, which is encouraged by the necessity of pay- 
ing attention to the formation of the letters and the 
correct spelling, although even this becomes largely 
instinctive by long habit. There is in writing, however, 
a constant attention to literary form, a deliberate selection 
of words and forms of sentence, which takes place here 
to a far greater extent than is possible in any but the 
most studied kind of public discourse, and which is almost 
entirely absent from familiar and colloquial speech. 

At any rate, it is certain that the natural speaker is 



SPEECH ENVIRONMENT 63 

quite unconscious even of the precise acoustic effect of the 
sounds which he uses, while of the subtle and delicate 
adjustments and co-ordinations of the vocal mechanism he 
is completely ignorant. He does not attempt, consciously 
at least, either to preserve or to modify any sound or 
syllable. 

The pronunciation of other speakers, which we may call 
the ' speech environment, 1 certainly exercises an influence 
upon every individual. From others he learned his pro- 
nunciation to start with, and from those with whom he is 
brought in contact throughout his life he, in a sense, goes 
on learning so long as his sense of hearing lasts : — that is 
to say, the speech of the individual tends to approximate 
to the average speech of those with whom he is brought 
into contact. This influence of one speaker upon another, 
which will be discussed more at length in another chapter, 
is, however, normally, unperceived by those who under- 
go it. 

The case in which a speaker, from Scotland, let us say, 
comes to England, and definitely and deliberately tries to 
get rid of his ' Scotch accent, 1 and adopts the speech of 
the South, is nothing against the general principle that 
the influence of one form of speech upon another is exerted 
unconsciously. In the case cited we have, to start with, a 
conventional and artificial preference for Southern rather 
than for Northern English, and, further, what takes place 
is simply that the speaker chooses to learn another dialect. 
This differs only in degree from the case in which a Dutch- 
man in Germany elects to acquire and to speak German. 

If it be true that the language of every speaker under- 
goes, throughout his life, a continuous influence from other 



64 HOW LANGUAGE IS ACQUIRED AND HANDED ON 

speakers with whom he comes in contact, it would seem as 
though the process of ' acquiring ' a language was one 
which is never complete, and which never ceases while 
life and intelligence remain. And this is, in a sense, the 
case ; but it is possible and useful to set a limit in thought 
to the period during which the native language is being 
acquired. Certainly, as far as pronunciation is concerned, 
we may say that, up to a point, the child is still ' learning ' 
to speak. There comes a time, however, when he has 
mastered all the sounds in use among those with whom he 
lives. Those with whom he associates most closely during 
this early period of life, may be considered as his ' speech 
parents ' — those from whom he learns. After this the circle 
of persons with whom he comes in contact will, in all 
probability, be greatly widened with advancing years. 
The unconscious influence of this growing circle of speakers 
affects his pronunciation ; but less and less so after the 
early years, for the reason that the individual has already 
' learnt ' his language, has formed his own speech basis, 
and has an independent existence as a speaker. There- 
fore the unconscious influence of other speakers upon the 
pronunciation of an individual acts slowly, and is com- 
paratively slight after this first period. As regards the 
other sides of language, vocabulary and sentence-structure, 
these are undoubtedly susceptible of unconscious modifi- 
cation for a very much longer period. These aspects of 
language are the expression of personal culture and 
experience, and naturally tend to become richer, more 
complex and more varied, with the growth of the 
intellectual and moral man. 

The life -history of the speech of the individual is a part 



LANGUAGE CHANGED IN TRANSMISSION 65 

of the history of the language ; and so, the problem of the 
acquirement of his language by the individual, is part of 
the general problem of the development of language. 

For we cannot regard language as something which 
is handed on in a fixed and definite form from one 
individual, and acquired in precisely the same form by 
another. It is changed, however inconsiderably, in the 
very process of transmission, re-minted at the outset by 
the crucible of the new mind into which it passes, and the 
slightly different physical organism, which performs afresh 
the movements of speech. 

Thus we see that the elements of change in language lie 
in the transmission from one generation to another, and in 
the essential differences which exist between individuals. 

The conception of an absolutely uniform language, exist- 
ing even during a single generation, and in a single small 
community, is in reality a mere hypothetical assumption. 

We shall now have to consider how far uniformity of 
speech actually does exist, in what way definite tendencies 
of change arise in the individual, why and to what extent 
these are shared by the community at large. 

Note. — In pursuing the study of the General Principles 
of the development of language, which are dealt with in 
this and several subsequent chapters of this book, the 
student should consult : 

Sweet : Words, Logic, and Grammar, Trans. Phil. Soc, 
1875-1876. History of Language, Dent, 1900. 
History of English Sounds, §§ 1-241, Oxford, 1888. 

Strong, Logemann, and Wheeler : History of Lang uage, 
Longmans, 1891. 

5 



QG HOW LANGUAGE IS ACQUIRED AND HANDED ON 

Paul : Principien der Sprachgeschichte. 

[An epoch-making book ; has contributed largely 
to form the modem point of view. Most writers 
on General Principles at the present day draw 
their inspiration primarily from it.] 

Wechsler : Gibt es Lautgesetze ? 1900. 

Osthoff and Brugmann : Vorwort to Morphologisclie 

Untersucliimgen^ Erster Theil, 1878. 

Other works will be referred to in the course of the 
following pages. My debt to all the above is very great 
— I acknowledge it here — for the general treatment of the 
subjects discussed in the next few chapters. 



CHAPTER IV 

SOUND CHANGE 

By the phrase ' sound change ' is meant those changes in 
pronunciation which take place in every language in the 
course of time. It is easy to convince ourselves that 
changes of pronunciation have occurred in English, for 
instance, in the last 200 years. Pope's lines — 

' And praise the easy vigour of a line, 
Where Denham's strength, and Waller's sweetness join ' 

— are often quoted to illustrate the fact, borne out by other 
evidence, that the rhymes in his time were (lain — dzain). 
Again, the same poet writes : 

' Fearing ev'n fools, by flatterers besieged, 
And so obliging, that he ne'er obliged,' 

where the last word was undoubtedly pronounced (oblldzd). 
These rhymes at least illustrate the fact that less than 
200 years ago two English words were pronounced by a 
cultivated person like Pope, who frequented the best 
English society of his day, in a manner which at the 
present time would strike people of the same standing as 
strange, if not vulgar. 

If we consider the written records of still earlier periods 
of our language in the light of that method of inter- 
preting the old symbols which we owe primarily to the late 

67 5—2 



68 SOUND CHANGE 

Mr. A. J. Ellis, the differences of pronunciation which we 
are able to feel certain existed between the speech of these 
periods and that of the present day are so great that, 
putting aside the other differences of vocabulary and the 
general structure of the language, we cannot doubt that 
the English of King Alfred, of Chaucer, and even of 
Shakespeare, would be largely unintelligible to us, if we 
were able to ' hold an hour's communion with the dead.' 

If this remarkable amount of change has taken place in 
a few centuries in the pronunciation of several generations 
of Englishmen living in England, how much greater will be 
the degree of change which the pronunciation of one and 
the same language will undergo in the course of several 
thousands of years among separate nations living in 
widely remote countries ! We can form some idea of the 
possibilities of the extent of divergence from an original 
form under these conditions if we consider the diversity 
which the same word exhibits in the various Aryan 
families of speech. 

It might seem at the first blush improbable or impossible 
that Scrt. dhumas,Gk. Ov/jlos, J^at. frtmus, O.S1. dymu, Gothic 
dauris, O.E. dust, from earlier *dunst (Eng. dust), can 
have anything in common as regards form, and yet, unless 
the modern science of Comparative Philology is entirely 
vain and its methods futile, all these words are merely the 
various pronunciations, developed in the course of long 
ao-es, of the same original word or * root ' among different 
branches of Aryan speech. In the case of the O.E. word 
dust there is also a difference of suffix ; Scrt. and O.S1. agree 
in having an original long u compared with a short, but 
also original vowel in the other languages ; while the Gothic 



MODIFICATION OF THE MEMORY-PICTURES G9 

dauns has, again, a different, but equally original, form of the 
vowel ; otherwise the above forms are completely cognate. 

It is proposed in this chapter to discuss how, and from 
what cause, the sounds of speech undergo change. 

And first let us say that, although the phrase ' sound 
change ' is convenient and in universal use, it is, from the 
point of view of strict accuracy, erroneous. For we are to 
consider that a sound in itself cannot change ; it is uttered 
and is gone : it has in itself no permanence. When we say 
that the same sound is repeated, we mean that an identical, 
or nearly identical, series of movements of the vocal 
organs is performed, and that the same acoustic effect is 
produced as upon a former occasion. 

The permanent element in uttered speech — that part, 
therefore, which is capable of a historical development — 
is the psychological element, those groups of memory- 
pictures upon which we dwelt in the preceding chapter. 

The pronunciation of the same word in the same com- 
munity is different from one age to another ; we say, 
speaking loosely, that in this case the sounds of the com- 
munity have changed. What has really happened is that 
the underlying memory-pictures of sound and movements 
undergo gradual modification, and are different in one age 
from what they were in a former, and, in all probability, 
from what they will be later on. 

If this is borne in mind, we may continue to speak of 
' sound change? meaning thereby a change in the aggregate 
of mental pictures possessed by all the individuals of a 
community, the result of which is that a series of substi- 
tutions takes place of one sound for another, until the 
sounds actually pronounced by a later generation in the 



70 SOUND CHANGE 

same word differ widely from those pronounced by an 
earlier generation {cf. Wechsler, pp. 26, 27). 

If the pronunciation of a language changes, it can only 
be due to the fact that the vocal organs are used by the 
members of a community in a different way at one period 
from what they are at another ; the series of movements 
of the vocal organs, the positions which these assume in 
speaking, and therefore the underlying mental pictures of 
these, have been modified. 

We have said that that group of physical movements 
and those underlying groups of mental pictures which 
exist at any moment among the members of a community 
constitute what is known as the ' speech basis."* 

An inquiry into the causes and processes of sound change, 
then, is actually an inquiry into the conditions under which 
the speech basis of a community is gradually modified. 

It will be convenient to consider the question, in the 
first instance, as it affects the individual, since the speech 
of a community is obviously merely the collective utter- 
ance of the individuals of which it is composed. The 
relation of the individual to his community will be dis- 
cussed in the next chapter. 

All bodily movements which are the result of volition 
can only be carried out by virtue of the subconscious 
memory - picture which they reproduce each time the 
action is repeated. Until this memory-picture is formed, 
the series of movements is uncertain and imperfect. If we 
take the case of such a highly-specialized series of co- 
ordinated movements as those necessary to ' cast a fly ' in 
fishing, or of using a billiard cue so as to produce a 
6 screw,' it is evident that these, like the series of move- 



LIMITS OF UNPERCEIVED DEVIATION 71 

ments of the vocal organs which produce a speech sound, 
can only be successfully carried out as the result of con- 
siderable practice. In all cases the memory-picture must 
be clear and definite. Now, it is evident that although 
a practised fisherman can generally throw a fly so as to 
produce approximately the desired result — in this case, 
that is to say, to put it modestly, at least in such a way as 
not to flick the fly off — he nevertheless does not reproduce 
in each successive cast precisely and absolutely the same 
series of movements ; there are variations in the degree of 
force, in the direction, in the curves described by the 
hand as it is raised and brought forward again after the 
line has been straightened behind the fisherman, and in 
many other ways too subtle to analyze. Yet each success- 
ful cast (successful in the sense indicated above) satisfies 
the person who performs the movements : he feels that he 
has cast his fly in the proper way. This merely means 
that, in spite of divergence, the series of movements corre- 
sponds to, and reproduces the memory - picture of the 
process sufficiently exactly for the divergence not to be 
appreciable. A certain possible limit of deviation from 
the memory-picture exists, within which the departure is 
unperceived. If, however, the divergence of the action 
from the memory-picture of this be too great, the fisher- 
man is conscious of it, and feels that he has made a bad 
throw — a fact of which the loss of his fly probably adds 
further confirmation. 

In just the same way, the actions of the vocal organs 
in speech, reproduce the memory-pictures approximately, 
though not always exactly. Here, again, if the move- 
ment-series deviates beyond a certain extent from the 



72 SOUND CHANGE 

mental picture, the divergence is recognised, partly by 
the actual muscular sensation, but more generally by 
reason of the divergence of the result from the memory- 
picture of the sound. 

But the memory-pictures themselves are not homo- 
geneous, and composed of only one kind of impression ; 
for each repeated utterance of the sound leaves its trace 
upon the mental picture. Upon the mind is recorded 
each divergence from the original picture — that is, a new- 
impression of a slightly different character is made. Of 
the various impressions recorded, the most recent are the 
deepest and most potent ; so that in the course of time the 
new impressions outweigh the older in the memory-picture. 
Thus in time the aggregate of impressions result in a 
memory-picture which is of a slightly different character 
from the old one. From this new memory-picture the 
same degree of unperceived divergence is possible, this 
degree being always constant ; but since the memory- 
picture itself has been modified, the starting-point of 
divergence has also been shifted slightly further from the 
original point of departure. 

To put the matter in another way, if the change in 
pronunciation is sufficiently gradual, if it does not pro- 
ceed further than a certain point at a time, the individual 
does not perceive the slight shifting which has taken 
place, and the impression is unconsciously recorded. If, 
however, the pronunciation at a given moment of utter- 
ance is too far from what the speaker instinctively feels to 
be the normal, he at once perceives the difference, and 
6 corrects ' the result as a ' mistake ' or a ' slip of the 
tongue.' Thus, on account of the inherent instability of 



EXAMPLES OF ISOLATIVE SOUND CHANGE 73 

the organs of speech and the habits of using them, the pro- 
nunciation of each individual is continually liable to slight 
variation, and therefore, gradually, to permanent alteration. 
Variation in the speech of the individual is, according 
to the above statements, in the natural and inevitable 
order of things. The speech basis is gradually modified, 
and with it the sounds change. 

This natural shifting of the speech basis is the cause of 
all change in sound, when this is gradual and regular. 

Sound changes are conveniently divided into two main 
classes : Isolative Changes, which take place independent 
of other neighbouring sounds in the word or sentence, and 
uninfluenced by them ; and Combinative Changes, in which 
sounds are modified by others which occur in close 
proximity to them. Both classes of changes depend 
upon the shifting of the organic basis of speech. It may 
be well to give at once concrete examples from our own 
language of each kind of change. 

Isolative Changes. — Down to the end of the fifteenth 
century, or the beginning of the sixteenth, the long 
sound (u), whether inherited from Old English or acquired 
(in French words) during the Middle English period, per- 
sisted, so far as we can tell, practically unaltered, unless, 
indeed, it was shortened by other combinative factors. 
About the date above mentioned, however, in the South, 
and far North into the Midlands, (u) was gradually diph- 
thongized by a process which we need not now discuss, 
until it reached, probably by the middle of the eighteenth 
century, its present sound of (cm), as in 'house' (haus), 
'ground' (gr^nd), etc. Another isolative change of 
comparatively recent origin is that of the eighteenth- 



74 SOUND CHANGE 

century (se) sounds to (a). Almost all (a) sounds which 
occur in Modern English, as in 'father' (fa$a), 'rather' 
(raftd), < clerk ' (klak), go back to eighteenth-century (se) 
sounds, the forms of these words in that century being 
(fseSar, rj£3ar, klierk). This change involves a gradual 
retraction of the tongue from a low-front vowel position 
to that of the low-back, which has been subsequently 
raised, nearly everywhere, to the mid-back, the present 
sound. It is curious to reflect that during part of the 
eighteenth century the sound (a) did not exist in the 
standard dialect of English. Foreign words, introduced 
during this period, which contained (a) in the language 
from which they were borrowed, still retain the sound (5), 
which was then substituted for the original (a) ; thus 
'brandy pawnee " = (p5ni), Scrt. pani, 'water 1 ; and the 
place-names Cabul (Kabwl) for Kabul, and Cawnpore 
(K5np5[a]). In the same way the now slightly vulgar 
pronunciation (v5z) ' vase ' represents, no doubt, an 
eighteenth-century attempt at the French sound (vaz). 

An old-fashioned pronunciation of 'rather* as (reiSa), 
which still obtains in America, and, curiously enough, in 
this country also, amongst school-boys, though only as 
form of peculiar emphasis, goes back to a different type, 
eighteenth-century (reSar), which can be shown to have 
existed side by side with the type (rseSar). This form 
must be still further derived from a M.E. type, rafter 
(rafter), whereas our modern form (ratSa) is from a M.E. 
rafter, the first vowel of which was fronted to (ae) giving 
(raeto) in the sixteenth, and (raetter), with vowel- 
lengthening before (ft), in the seventeenth or early 
eighteenth century. With the exception of this com- 



COMBINATIVE FRONTING IN O.E. 75 

binative lengthening, all the changes which the two 
M.E. types rafter and rafter have undergone are isolative 
in character. 

Combinative Changes. — The number of these in the 
history of English, as, indeed, in that of most languages, 
is very large. A few examples will suffice for the moment. 

The two words 6 cold ' and ' chill ' are both derived from 
the same root (although they have different suffixes), 
but different combinative factors have determined their 
respective forms. 

In O.E. these words appear as cold, an Anglian form, 
and ciele, a West Saxon form. It is the difference of the 
initial with which we are primarily concerned here. In 
6 cold,'' from O.E. cold, from Gmc. *kalda-, the initial 
consonant, a voiceless back-stop, is the original consonant, 
and has undergone no change, being followed by a back 
vowel; in 'chill,'' however, the O.E. ciele presupposes an 
earlier, primitive Old West Saxon *ceali, from a still earlier 
*~kceli, which comes from a Gmc. *Jcali-. In this case the 
original Gmc. back-stop has been fronted in West Saxon 
to a front-stop, which has developed into the Modern 
English 'ch-' (t$) sound. This is an example of the 
fact that in prehistoric O.E. a back-stop was fronted to a 
front-stop before a following front vowel — in this case (ae) 
low-front. Wherever in Modern English what is popularly 
called the 6 ch- ' sound (t$) occurs in words of native 
English origin, it is derived from an earlier k, fronted, 
during the O.E. period, through the influence of a following 
original front vowel, — one that is, which was already front 
in the oldest English period. 

Other examples of this combinative fronting of an 



76 SOUND CHANGE 

earlier k through the influence of a following front vowel 
are: O.E. cin(n), Mod.E. 'chin,'' with which compare Gothic 
Jcinnus, O.E. cycene, an early loan - word from Latin 
coqulna, through an intermediate form, ^hukina. In this 
O.E. word the second k was fronted before the front vowel i, 
whereas the initial remains a back consonant, because the 
following y, although also a front vowel, did not become 
so until the tendency for such vowels to affect preceding- 
consonants had passed away. These processes will be 
described later on in more detail, in dealing specifically 
with O.E. sound changes. 

Another combinative tendency which affects a large 
number of words in O.E. was that to round back vowels 
before nasal consonants. Thus we have reason to know 
that the O.E. mona, ' moon,' came from an earlier form, 
*mdnd, with the unrounded (a) (mid- or low-back) in the 
first syllable. It is probable that the vowel itself was 
first slightly nasalized, and this nasal (a) gradually tended 
to acquire a rounded pronunciation, just as the nasal 
vowel in en, an, in French, as in enfant (dfd), is rounded, in 
the pronunciation of most French speakers, sometimes to 
a very considerable extent. 

Now, it is characteristic of all tendencies of change in 
pronunciation, both Isolative and Combinative, that they 
obtain only for a period in the history of a language, and 
then pass away. Thus, for instance, as we have seen at a 
certain time, the speakers of Old English tended to pro- 
nounce back consonants before front vowels more and 
more forward, until at last they were uttered as wholly 
front consonants. But this habit died out, since we find 
that this modification of back consonants does not take 



DYING OUT OF TENDENCIES OF CHANGE 77 

place before those front vowels which were developed by a 
later process from earlier back vowels. We pronounce, to 
the present day, a back consonant in ( ¥m? and therefore 
can have no doubt that the O.E. word cynn, 'race,' 
* family,' also had a back consonant (k) initially, although 
the next sound in the word, y (high-front-round), is just 
as much a front vowel as i in O.E. cm, 6 chin.' But O.E. y 
in the former word was originally u, as we can see from a 
comparison with the Gothic Jcuni, which preserves the 
older form of the vowel. The O.E. y sound was developed 
by a fronting of original u, at a period at which there was 
no longer any tendency on the part of English speakers to 
advance the place of articulation of k when it came imme- 
diately before a front vowel. 

According to the varying speech habits, the same com- 
bination of sounds is differently treated, not only in dif- 
ferent dialects or languages, but in the same language at 
different periods. The so-called Soimd Laws, or Phonetic 
Laws, therefore, are merely statements to the effect that 
at a given time, a given community tended to alter the pro- 
nunciation of such and such a sound, or combination of 
sounds, in such and such a way. This, of course, does 
not prevent the same tendency arising, independently, in 
totally unrelated languages, or more than once in the same 
language. 

The problem of combinative changes is no less difficult 
than that of isolative changes. It is true that, in the 
former case, the immediate phonetic or physiological 
causes which determine the change are generally apparent ; 
but these causes are not of universal operation, as we have 
seen from the fact that different languages, or the same 



78 SOUND CHANGE 

language at different periods of its history, may treat the 
same combination of sounds in different ways, now leaving 
it unaltered, now altering it in this way or that. 

This transitoriness of tendencies of sound change has 
already been illustrated by those combinative processes in 
the history of English to which passing reference has been 
made, but further illustration may be useful to show with 
what varying force they obtain, even among the different 
dialects of the same language. 

A good example of this is the process known as ' u-a- 
Umlaid, which began in O.E., probably early in the 
eighth century. Briefly stated, this process consisted in 
the development of a vowel-glide after a front vowel when 
a back rounded vowel follows in the next syllable. This 
vowel-glide apparently develops into a full vowel, which 
combines with the preceding to produce a diphthong. 
Thus an original widu, 'wood, 1 becomes *wi u du, then 
wiudu, whence w'wdu in Northumbrian and weodu (wudu) 
in Mercian and West Saxon. 

The O.E. dialects vary considerably, both in the extent 
to which this diphthonging takes place, and also in the 
conditions which promote its occurrence. 

In West Saxon, Northumbrian, and part of the Kentish 
area, ce remains unaffected by a following u, o, a ; in Mercian, 
on the other hand, original ce, when followed by one of 
these vowels, is diphthongized, first to ce u , ceu, ceo, cea, ea, 
the latter being the ordinary spelling. Thus in W.S. and 
Northumbrian the plural of feet, 'cup,' ' vessel" (Mod.E. 
''vaf), is fatu, from *fcetu, with un-fronting of ce to a 
before the following u, but in Mercian featu. 

The vowels i and e are diphthongized, to a certain 



UNEQUAL DEVELOPMENT 79 

extent, in all dialects, but the conditions under which this 
occurs are far more limited in W.S. than in the other 
dialects ; also u produces diphthongization much more 
readily in this dialect than a or o. Thus, after w, i be- 
came iu<Cw<eo quite normally, no matter what the 
intervening consonant may be: cwku, 'living,' becomes 
cweocu; widu<weodu (whence, later, c(w)ucu, wudu), 
otherwise the vowel remains undiphthongized, except when 
I, r, or the lip consonants intervene : sicol, ' sickle] from 
*siJcul, nigun, 'nine, 1 from *nfyun, sinu, 'sinew,' hnitu, 
'nit'; but sweotol (and swutol), 'clear, 1 from *switul, 
meolc (earlier mmluc), from *miluh\ 'milk, 1 seofon, 
'seven, 1 from *sidun, cleopode, 'called, 1 from *cliupode, 
earlier clipode, pret. of clipian, and so on. 

Under approximately the same conditions original e 
becomes eu, then eo : eofor, ' wild boar, 1 from e&ur, heorot, 
' hart, 1 from earlier herut, heolstor, ' darkness, 1 from earlier 
helustor; but regol, 'rule, 1 an early loan-word from the 
Latin regula, fetor, 'fetter, 1 from *fetur, sprecol, from 
earlier spread, ' loquacious. 1 

It appears, from the above examples, that in W.S. the 
tendency to diphthongization did not arise when the inter- 
vening consonant was a point-teeth or back, unless w pre- 
ceded the i or e. 

In the Kentish dialect of O.E., on the other hand, • and 
e, and, in some early texts, ce also, appear to be diphthong- 
ized, whenever u follows in the next syllable, whether w 
precedes or not, and no matter what the nature of the 
intervening consonant. Thus we find such forms as reogol, 
'rule, 1 breogo, 'prince, 1 from *bregu, freodu- (in names)' 
when W.S. ha&JHdii-. Such Kentish forms as 'to nio- 



80 SOUND CHANGE 

marine ,' ' to take,' forgeofan (inf.), earlier *-gefia?i, where i 
and e are diphthongized by a following a, are quite foreign 
to W.S., which has nimanne, giefan (also from *getan, by 
a process peculiar to W.S. (p. 236). 

Mercian and Northumbrian also diphthongize i and e 
freely ; the former ce as well, but before a following back 
consonant (c or g) the diphthong is ' smoothed ' or mon- 
ophthongized again, in these dialects, by a tendency which 
arose subsequent to the u-, a-, o-Umlaut. Thus in Mercian 
*da?gum, doegas (dat. and nom.-acc. pi. of dceg, 'day') 
apparently became *dce u gum, etc., but were subsequently 
smoothed to dcegum, doegas, which are the forms actually 
found in the principal Mercian text {Vespasian Psalter). 

These processes of diphthongization did not arise, so far 
as we know, in any of the O.E. dialects before the begin- 
ning of the eighth or, at earliest, the end of the seventh 
century, and when once the above changes were complete, 
the speech habit which produced them died out, never 
again to be revived.* 

It might appear that the problem of Combinative 
Change differs essentially from that of Isolative Change, 
since in the former case the \ causes ' can be discovered and 
stated, whereas in the latter case it is only possible to 
state that this or that change occurs, undetermined, how- 
ever, so far as we can discover, by the nature of the 
surrounding sounds. But since, as we have seen, the 
6 causes ' of Combinative Change depend for their effective- 
ness upon the natural speech tendencies which obtain at 

* A very full account, and copious illustrations of every class of 
Isolative and Combinative Sound Change, will be found in Paul 
Passy's Changements Phonetiques du Langage, Paris, 1891. 



CAUSES OF SOUND CHANGE 81 

the moment throughout a community, it is evident that 
the real determining 'cause'' of this class of sound changes, 
as of isolative changes, is the speech basis. It is the 
general habit of speech which produces among a group of 
speakers the tendency to a given treatment of a combina- 
tion of sounds, no less than to that of the isolated sound. 
Some German writers {e.g., Sievers, in his Phonetik) employ 
the terms 'bedingtj or 'caused? sound change for combina- 
tive, as distinct from ' unbedingt, or ' uncaused,'' for isola- 
tive change. These terms are misleading, unless it be 
clearly borne in mind that both classes of change are 
ultimately caused or determined by the natural tendencies 
which are inseparable from a given speech basis. It is 
only by virtue of this that the pronunciation of a sound, 
at a given moment in the history of a language, tends to 
be influenced by the surrounding sounds. 

We cannot explain the reason of the rise and passing 
away of these tendencies ; we can only shift the matter a 
stage further back, and say that they are inseparably 
associated with the speech basis of the community at the 
moment, and that, since this is unstable, so also the ten- 
dencies to variation must necessarily be in different direc- 
tions at different times and among different communities. 

The real problem of the causes of sound change, then, 
is put in the question, What factors determine the precise 
nature of the speech basis of a community at a particular 
period ? If we could answer this question, we should solve 
the question which is involved in it, namely, Why do the 
speakers of a community show at one period a set of ten- 
dencies in pronunciation, a group of speech habits, which 
are quite foreign to their ancestors or their descendants in 

6 



82 SOUND CHANGE 

former or later ages ? — we should be far nearer than we 
are at present to solving one of the most important prob- 
lems connected with the evolution of speech. 

Many attempts have been made to account for the 
general fact that the sounds of language change, but none 
are wholly satisfactory. The simple question, What is it 
that modifies the speech basis of a community ? remains 
unanswered, or, at best, only partially answered. 

Formerly all sound change was ascribed to the inherent 
laziness of men, who were said to be for ever striving after 
increased ease of utterance. This was the view of the 
eminent philologist Schleicher {Deutsche Sprache, pp. 50 and 
following) and Whitney the Sanscrit scholar (Language and 
its Study, 1875, pp. 42, 43, and Life and Growth of Language, 
1886, p. 49, etc.). It must be urged against this theory 
that ease and difficulty are very relative terms — familiar 
sounds being, as a rule, easy, unfamiliar sounds difficult ; 
and although a certain absolute difficulty might, perhaps, be 
asserted to exist in certain sound combinations, they are 
nevertheless preserved in some languages. Some changes 
which occur in language seem to be in the direction rather 
of increased than less effort. The real answer, however, 
is that the fact of ease or difficulty existing among a given 
community in the pronunciation of certain sounds depends 
upon their speech basis. 

A desire for Euphony is another popular explanation, 
which formerly received the support of authorities — e.g., 
Bopp, Vgl. Gr., pp. 7, 77, 96, 274, etc. ; Vocalismus, 
pp. 18, 29 ; also Scherer, Geschichte d. deutschen Spr., 
pp. 136-138. This suggestion must be at once rejected 
when we reflect that pronunciation changes gradually, 



INFLUENCE OF CLIMATE 83 

without the deliberate intention, or even the knowledge, of 
the speakers ; and, further, that the deliberate alteration 
of pronunciation for the purpose of producing a more 
beautiful effect upon the ear would make sound change 
largely a matter of personal whim, which would result in 
endless diversity — to the extent of imperilling intelligi- 
bility — within the same community. 

The influence of Climate was pressed by OsthofF {Das 
physiologisclie und das psychologische Moment in der 
Sprachlichen Formenbildung, 1879) as a means of account- 
ing for the diversity of treatment of the same original 
sounds among the various groups of Aryan speakers. 
It cannot be denied that climate, since it determines so 
largely the general mode of life, the social organization, 
and the bodily habits of a community, and originally 
possibly even the racial characters must also, to some 
extent, at least, affect the language. And yet the sounds 
of a language go on changing throughout the centuries, 
while the people continue to live under the same climatic 
conditions. It would seem more probable that climate 
might help to predispose the speech basis of a community 
in a new direction, if a tribe migrated from its original 
seat to a new and very different geographical area, but 
that when the climatic conditions had once produced their 
effect, or continued to produce them upon each succeeding 
generation, they would rather tend to conserve than to 
alter the speech basis, unless, of course, some marked 
change of climate came about. At any rate, so far, no 
specific sound change has ever been related, with certainty, 
to any definite conditions of climate, and it seems as if 
the most that we can say is, that climate may contribute 

6—2 



84 SOUND CHANGE 

to produce a speech basis which inherently tends to vary 
along certain lines, although the connection between the 
two has never yet been shown. 

Darmsteter {La Vie des Mots, 1887, p. 7) and Passy 
{Changements Phonetiques du Langage, 1891, pp. 230-235) 
maintain that sound change is primarily due to the 
'mistakes' and faulty imitation of the pronunciation of 
their elders by children when learning to speak. This 
amounts to saying that children never peiTectly master the 
sounds of their native language, a view which seems to be 
contradicted by experience ; for the grosser ' mistakes ' of 
children are soon corrected, and at seven or eight years 
of age the normal child is usually completely conversant 
with all the sounds in use among the community in which 
he lives. Besides, it is not explained how it comes about 
that all the children of the same generation make approxi- 
mately the same 'mistakes'; or, in other words, why, if 
sound change has its roots in ' mistakes ' of this kind, the 
pronunciation of a given community tends to vary on 
practically homogeneous lines. It is, of course, true that 
language changes from generation to generation, in the 
very process, as we have seen, of being handed on, but this 
is because the rising generation begins, as it were, where 
the former leaves off; their speech is the reproduction 
of the most recent developments of their parents' speech, 
and has, therefore, a slightly different starting-point of 
deviation. Thus, if the norm of the parents 1 speech be 
represented by a, with a possible, unperceived deviation 
represented by a 4 , the children's norm will perhaps be # 3 , 
with the range of possibilities of deviation, bringing the 
limit to a 7 . There is also an element of variation in the 



FOREIGN CONTACT 85 

fact that individuals are differently constituted, mentally 
and physically, so that the learner's speech can never be 
an exact reproduction of that of his parents. But these 
personal peculiarities in speech cannot, normally, exceed 
the limits at which they are recognisable. 

Lastly, in enumerating the various explanations pro- 
posed, we may mention the factor which has been empha- 
sized by Hirt {Indogermanische Forschungen, iv.,pp. S6-4^5), 
and quite recently, and more fully, by Wechsler (Gibt es 
Lautgesetze $ 1900), as chief among the influences which 
modify the speech basis — namely, contact with foreign 
speakers. 

The nature of this influence is easily grasped. In 
attempting to reproduce the sounds of a foreign language 
we inevitably, as has been already pointed out, attempt to 
imitate the strange sounds by uttering those sounds which 
are nearest to them, according to our own perceptions, in 
our own language. We never completely acquire the new 
series of movements — that is, the speech basis of the foreign 
tongue — but tend to modify the sounds, according to our 
own familiar habits of articulation. Thus in time may we 
indeed acquire a new speech basis, one different from our 
own, but differing, also, more or less, from that of the 
language we are trying to speak. The result is practically 
a new form of speech which is neither one thing nor the 
other. If we conceive of this process on a much larger 
scale, as when two races come into social contact and acquire 
each other's language, subsequently the speech of one will 
predominate, that of the other dying out, with the result 
that the speech basis of the whole area occupied by the 
two groups of speakers has been shifted : first in the 



80 SOUND CHANGE 

mouths of the foreigners, and then, if these and their 
descendants are really assimilated, so that the two races 
are welded into a single community, by the reaction of 
the new manner of speech on the old. In the primitive 
wanderings of races the process of the incorporation of 
peoples speaking different languages must continually be 
going on. 

The further question of how far racial characteristics tell 
in moulding the speech basis, is also involved in the above 
hypothesis. Are we to add race mixture as a further in- 
fluence on the language arising from foreign contact ? 

It seems evident that such obvious points as the degree 
of thickness of the lips, the length and general size of the 
tongue, the facial angle, the shape and size of the nose, all 
of which are characteristic racial features, must play a 
considerable part in determining the original speech basis; 
and there may be subtler points of anatomical structure 
which play a part, as well as the general temperament and 
natural bodily habit. 

But so far the anatomists have done but little to show 
the precise connection between the physical structure of 
races and the speech basis therewith associated. 

In the absence of precise knowledge it is, perhaps, safer 
to assume that, within limits, the speech organs are so 
adaptable that an individual of any race can acquire the 
speech habits of any other, provided his linguistic training 
begins in childhood, and that the structural differences 
between the vocal organs of the various races are of less 
importance, on the whole, in determining the speech basis, 
than are those particular habits of using the organs, which 
are acquired in infancy by the unconscious and natural 



RACIAL CHARACTERISTICS 87 

process of learning the mother-tongue, understanding by 
this phrase the language which a child learns first. 

It seems that a change in the speech basis need not 
imply a modification in the structure of the speech organs 
themselves, but only of the mode of using them. 

At the same time, it is a reasonable inference that the 
speech basis is, under normal conditions, related to the 
actual shape and structure of the organs of speech, and 
therefore that the more two races differ in physical type, 
the greater will be the differences in their natural speech 
habits. In this sense, the effect of foreign speakers in 
modifying the speech basis of a community, will be in 
proportion to the degree of separation between the 
two races. The more unlike one race is to another in 
temperament and physical type, the greater will be the 
difference between the natural tendencies of their speech 
organs ; the more considerable, therefore, the modification 
which the language of each will undergo in the mouths of 
speakers of the other race. 

The views of Hirt and Wechsler are widely accepted at 
the present moment, and there can be no doubt that the 
suggestion which they contain is a most valuable one in 
explaining, for instance, the differences which exist between 
the several groups of the Aryan family of languages, or the 
different branches of the Latin tongues — Italian, Spanish, 
French, Provencal, etc., all of which have been developed 
from closely-allied forms of popular Latin ; but the ex- 
planation does not always apply to the case where a single 
language in the course of its history develops, as we have 
seen is the case in English, quite different tendencies in 
succeeding periods, without it being possible to show the 



88 SOUND CHANGE 

connection between these tendencies, and any specific 
characteristic in other languages which have come into 
contact with it by conquest or otherwise. It might be 
maintained that those well-marked sound changes which 
distinguish Old English from the other West Germanic 
languages are, in some obscure way, due to the influence of 
native British speakers of Celtic origin, and later on of 
Scandinavians, and that the impulse to the sound changes 
which characterize the Middle English period had its 
origin in the speech of the Normans ; but even if such 
a theory could be substantiated, which is in the highest 
degree improbable, what foreign influence is responsible 
for the very considerable changes which have taken place 
in English pronunciation since the sixteenth century ? 

A factor which has hitherto hardly been considered, and 
which has certainly not been systematically investigated, is 
Occupation. There can be little doubt that the prolonged 
use of certain parts of the body in a particular way tends 
not only to affect the form and function of the parts 
themselves, but also, indirectly, induces a certain general 
bodily habit. There are many such modifications of the 
individual which affect the organs of speech, and may pre- 
dispose the person concerned to a particular mode of using 
these. Thus it might be supposed,, that such work as 
swinging a scythe or flail would develop the muscles of the 
chest and throat, in such a way as to affect the utterance. 
Again, the constant necessity to shout, which exists in 
noisy occupations, such as that of the fisherman or sailor, 
who has to make himself heard through the storm, or that 
of the blacksmith or factory hand, who must make their 
voices rise above the clang of the hammer on the anvil, or the 



INFLUENCE OF OCCUPATION 89 

hum and clashing of machinery, can but produce a perma- 
nent habit of speaking loud, which may affect the quality 
of the sounds uttered. Another point is that in speaking 
from a distance or amid noise, certain speech sounds 
become practically useless, because they are inaudible — 
namely, voiceless consonants, especially the stops. Under 
these conditions the vowels are al] -important, particularly 
those of the stressed syllables. These remarks are merely 
thrown out as a suggestion of a possible source of the 
modification of the speech basis. In any case, occupation 
can hardly be omitted from the forces which affect the 
development of language. 

Of all the above factors which, it has been maintained, 
modify the speech basis, none can be considered wholly 
sufficient to explain all cases ; and, although we may admit 
that race, climate, occupation, and foreign contact, each and 
all play their part in determining the physical and mental 
habits of a community, we must also recognise that the 
whole question is still very obscure, and that at present we 
know neither the precise way in which speech is affected by 
these modifying factors, nor how any of them, while 
remaining to all appearance constant, can yet produce 
tendencies of change, now in this way, now in that, in the 
pronunciation of a single language. 

In fact, so far as the history of a single language is con- 
cerned, which is spoken for a long period by the same race, 
in the same geographical area, and under identical climatic 
conditions, unaffected, for long periods at any rate, by any 
alien language, it is hardly too much to say that, although 
we can understand why the pronunciation should indeed 
be liable to change, we can, as yet, form no idea as to why 



90 SOUND CHANGE 

such a language develops just those specific changes in its 
sound system which, as a matter of fact, actually occur, 
nor why these arise at one period rather than another. 
For the present, the words of M. Paul Passy (Change? nents 
Phonetiques, § 617) remain true : 6 En somme, ce que 
nous savons sur les causes premieres des changements 
phonetiques est bien peu de chose. Nous constatons que 
dans tel dialecte, a tel moment, telle ou telle tendance 
phonetique predomine ; pourquoi predomine-t-elle, nous 
Tignorons, ou nous pouvons tout au plus le conjecturer. 1 



CHAPTER V 

DIFFERENTIATION OF LANGUAGE: THE RISE OF 
DIALECTS 

The problem now before us is how, from an originally 
uniform and homogeneous form of speech, there are 
developed, in the course of time, innumerable varieties — 
dialects which differ in varying degrees one from the other 
in essential features of pronunciation, and languages which 
are so distinct that only the most searching historical in- 
vestigation can reveal their original affinity. 

We may say at once that there is no radical difference 
between a 'Dialect' and a 'Language.' From the moment 
that two forms of speech present what we somewhat 
vaguely call 6 dialectal ' differences, which mark them as 
separate, the potentialities exist for infinite divergence. 
Under favourable conditions the two dialects may grow 
wider and wider apart, until not only are the two groups 
of speakers mutually unintelligible, but their common 
origin could never be suspected without the application 
of rigid historical and comparative method. 

The distinction between a ' Dialect ' and a ' Language ' 
is only one of the degree of differentiation from the 
original type. 

We have seen that the starting-point of sound change 

91 



92 DIFFERENTIATION OF LANGUAGE 

lies in the individual speaker. A change in the speech of 
a community is the result of the tendencies of a host of 
individuals. It has been pointed out that every individual 
differs slightly from every other ; how, then, can we speak 
of a community possessing a homogeneous language ? 
Further, we may ask, What is the precise relation of the 
speech of the individual to that of the community ? 

It is as well to know clearly what we mean by the term 
'community, 1 and it may be defined, for purposes of linguis- 
tic discussion, as a group of individuals who, by reason 
chiefly of the frequency of their social intercourse, natur- 
ally use the same form of speech, and among whom the 
individual differences are so slight that they are inappre- 
ciable. We speak of the ' community at large,' generally 
meaning thereby all persons who live in these islands. 
But within this large group of human beings there are 
many smaller groups and sections of the community. 
The smaller the social division, the closer must be the 
bond between the members of it, the more frequent and 
intimate their intercourse. Thus the inhabitants of a 
province, county, or large city form a little community or 
State by themselves, whose members are to a great extent 
independent of, and shut off from the influence of, other 
counties and cities. Normally, the communication and 
opportunities for social intercourse of such a group of 
persons among themselves are greater than those between 
them and the members of other similar groups outside 
their own. But even within the limits of the county or 
province, still smaller and more closely knit communities 
exist, in the villages and the hamlets included within the 
wider division. The hamlets and villages, again, are 



SPEECH COMMUNITIES 93 

made up of groups of separate families, and these, the 
narrowest and closest of all divisions of society, consist of 
individuals. 

In the strict sense, the limits of a speech community are 
comparatively narrow. Only such persons who, by virtue 
of their place of abode, and their occupations, and their 
general conditions of life, are brought into constant, and 
more or less intimate social intercourse, can be said to 
constitute a speech community. In the country, the 
village is generally coextensive with the speech com- 
munity ; in large towns the population forms itself into 
speech communities in the narrow sense, on principles 
which are largely determined by class and occupation ; but 
also to some extent by the actual distribution of the 
inhabitants throughout the various quarters and districts 
of the city. 

Among the members of the community, in the narrowest 
sense, there exist not only actual differences of pronuncia- 
tion, but also differences of tendency — one individual tends 
to vary his pronunciation in this way, another in that. 
But these differences of actual pronunciation, and of ten- 
dency to change, are usually so slight, that they are un- 
perceived, both by the individual himself and by the 
community among whom he lives. They arise, as we have 
seen, quite naturally, from the differences of mental and 
physical organization ; but they do not progress beyond a 
certain point, partly because of the unconscious effort of 
the speaker to reproduce exactly the sounds which he 
habitually hears, and partly because social intercourse, 
whereby the speech is acquired and handed on, no less than 
the fact that all the speakers of the community are under 



94 DIFFERENTIATION OF LANGUAGE 

practically identical conditions of life, naturally contributes 
to produce approximately the same habits of mind and 
body, therefore the same speech basis, and consequently 
the same pronunciation, and the same tendencies of change, 
in all the members of the community. 

The majority of tendencies of variation in speech habit 
which exist in the individual will be shared also by the 
speech community at large, so that they will be strength- 
ened and encouraged by social intercourse. Those ten- 
dencies, on the other hand, which are peculiar to the 
individual, and which are not shared by the community, 
will not gain ground, but will be eliminated. The 
strongest and most clearly marked of these individual 
tendencies will be unconsciously suppressed, or, in some 
cases even, will be deliberately checked in youth, by the 
corrective ridicule of associates ; others, which are not 
sufficiently marked to be generally noticeable, either dis- 
appear naturally with the definite acquirement of the 
speech basis, or may continue to exist, so long as they do 
not develop beyond the point at which they are recognis- 
able by the speaker himself and by his companions. Thus 
there is in every community a certain body of tendency 
which is common to all speakers, and this develops, un- 
perceived and gradual, but also, for the time being, 
unchecked. 

Allowing, then, for the slight and unrecognised differ- 
ences which exist between individual and individual, we may 
say that the speech of a community, in the special sense 
above defined, is homogeneous for all practical purposes ; 
and, allowing for the elimination of the purely individual 
tendencies, which do not jump with the general trend of 



INTERRUPTION OF SOCIAL INTERCOURSE 95 

speech habit, we may further say that all the members of 
such a community will tend, at a given time, to change 
their speech basis, and therefore their pronunciation, in 
one and the same direction. 

Now, it is clear that this uniformity of pronunciation, 
and this agreement in direction of change, presuppose the 
existence of a community in the sense in which we have 
defined it — namely, under such conditions that all the 
members have equal opportunities of intercourse with each 
other. If, however, this state of things be altered or 
upset, if circumstances arise which make this social inter- 
course less frequent, and less intense at any point within 
the community, or which create conditions in the mode of 
life which affect the community unequally ; then we can 
no longer regard the groups of speakers thus unequally 
affected, and variously circumstanced, as one community in 
the terms of our definition, but must consider that there 
are as many communities as there are centres of disturb- 
ance of the original conditions. We may regard the 
groups of speakers thus formed as isolated the one from 
the other, the degree of isolation being measured by the 
degree of interruption of the social intercourse which 
formerly existed. 

Now, when isolation occurs, which splits one community 
into two or more groups, the necessary conditions are 
present for the differentiation of the originally homogene- 
ous speech into dialects. Each group will tend to develop 
its language along different lines, and the differences, 
slight enough in the beginning, may in time attain con- 
siderable proportions. The reason why the different 
groups of speakers necessarily grow further and further 



96 DIFFERENTIATION OF LANGUAGE 

apart as regards their language is not difficult to under- 
stand. We must consider that every individual naturally 
tends gradually to diverge from the norm in speech so far 
as is possible within the limits already described. But 
the question of which of his personal tendencies are 
allowed to develop, and which are eliminated, is deter- 
mined by the general balance of habit and tendency in 
the community as a whole. So soon as the constitution 
of the community is changed, the balance is upset, and 
tendencies which would before have been checked may 
now, among a smaller group of speakers find a wider echo : 
— that is, there is a larger proportion of speakers who 
share them. These tendencies, therefore, are confirmed, 
and may become general among the new and smaller com- 
munity. Again, tendencies which find encouragement, and 
gain a firm footing in one community, are eliminated in 
another. Of course, unless the isolation be complete, it is 
probable that all the groups of speakers will still have 
certain lines of change in common, and will also agree, as 
before, in suppressing, for the most part unconsciously, 
certain other tendencies. 

The formation of dialects depends, then, upon the 
development of different groups or series of tendencies 
among communities which are isolated one from the other. 
The extent to which two or more dialects differ from, or 
agree with each other, in fostering, or eliminating, this or 
that tendency to variation, will depend upon the degree 
of completeness of the isolation of the several com- 
munities. 

We may now properly inquire what are the chief factors 
of isolation, or modes of interruption, of social intercourse, 



DIVISIONS OF SOCIETY— MODES OF ISOLATION 97 

which split up a community and give rise to dialectal 
differences. 

We may divide human society into groups of increasing 
size : the Family, a group of individuals naturally asso- 
ciated together by the fact of common parents and a 
common dwelling-place ; the Hamlet or Village, or group 
of Families ; the Province, which includes numerous 
villages ; and the Nation at large, which embraces all — 
Provinces, Villages, Hamlets, Families, and Individuals. 

Each of these divisions, while it typifies characteristic 
modes of isolation of group from group, necessarily in- 
volves also a characteristic association of the members of 
each group. Individual is isolated from individual, even 
in the same family, as we have seen, by slight differences 
of mind and body. These are the psychological and 
physiological, or Organic factors of isolation. Among 
them we may also consider differences of Age and of Sex. 
Family is separated from Family by the barriers of Occupa- 
tion, Class, and the fact of living in different houses — these 
we may call the Social factors ; Hamlet or Village from 
other Hamlets and Villages by the geographical features 
of the country — varying distance, rivers, mountain ranges, 
forests, moors, or lakes, and by what we may call Political 
conditions. These are the geographical factors, which, of 
course, include also the Political, Social, and Organic 
factors. Province is isolated from Province, and Nation 
from Nation, by the same kind of factors, only they are 
naturally intensified as the geographical separation becomes 
greater, until this often involves the further factors of 
Climate, Soil, the general mode of life, Religion, and Race 
itself. 

7 



98 DIFFERENTIATION OF LANGUAGE 

The wider our Social divisions, the more powerful, impor- 
tant, and complete becomes the mode of isolation which is 
associated with it. A community may gradually spread, 
by a process of natural and steady increase in numbers, 
over an immense area, until the outlying fringes of popu- 
lation attain to so great a geographical severance from the 
original centre that they reach an altogether different 
soil and climate. These may involve a total change in 
mode of life and in the whole fabric of Society, and con- 
tact with new and very different races. On the other 
hand, instead of the gradual spread of the population 
over wide tracts of country, the same results may be more 
rapidly, but just as completely, attained by a section of 
the community moving off from their original seats, and 
proceeding, within a comparatively short space of time, to 
a remote geographical area. 

It will be readily recognised that the Geographical 
factors are the most powerful of all in the differentiation 
of speech, since not only do they involve the complete 
isolation which results from a total severance of all social 
intercourse, thus including, in a very thorough form, all 
that group of factors which we have called the Social 
group, but they also expose the speakers to new conditions 
of Soil and Climate, and all that follows therefrom, and 
in this way are active in modifying the physical and 
mental organization, and therefore the speech basis. As 
we have repeatedly insisted, the speech basis of a people,, 
even when they are living under the same conditions for a 
long space of time, tends to vary ; but this process is 
greatly hastened and intensified if the community be 
subjected to such changed conditions of life and such 



SOCIAL ISOLATION— CLASS DIALECTS 99 

different outward surroundings as those to which it is 
exposed by migration to other climes, far-distant lands, 
and among alien peoples. We can observe how great are 
the differences in speech in a single large town between 
the different classes — the Public Services, the Professions, 
Commerce in its various grades, the Artisans, the Slum- 
dwellers. The isolation between these groups is Social, 
partly the natural result of difference of occupation, partly, 
also, due to the more artificial barriers of Class or Caste 
which are closely associated therewith. Originally, prob- 
ably, the same, the divisions created by Occupation and 
by Class are now distinct in nature, although they cross 
each other and overlap at innumerable points. 

But with all its differences of dialect, the speech of one 
large town, taken as a whole, may appear almost homo- 
geneous, if we compare it with that of another town in the 
same country which is a few hundred miles away. Such 
towns as Glasgow, Liverpool, and Bristol, all possess a 
number of what we may call class and occupational 
dialects, but the differences between such dialects are 
comparatively slight, by the side of those differences which 
will appear from a comparison of the speech as a whole, in 
each of the cities mentioned, with that of the others ; that 
is to say, that those speakers from Glasgow who differ most 
widely amongst each other, will have far more in common 
in their several pronunciations, than they will have with 
any speakers from Liverpool or Bristol. This statement 
does not, of course, include speakers of Standard English 
in these cities, whose speech is not appreciably modified 
by the Regional Dialect. 

The social conditions at the present time are so complex 
net* ?— 2 



100 DIFFERENTIATION OF LANGUAGE 

that, apart from the inhabitants of small country villages, 
practically no individual can be regarded merely as the 
member of a single community. From his position in 
society, the nature of his avocations, and the place of his 
abode, almost every one belongs, from these different points 
of view, to several communities ; he is brought, with 
varying degrees of intimacy, into relations with people of 
every class, engaged upon all manner of employments, and 
coming from widely different parts of the country. The 
result is that the speech of almost every individual, unless, 
indeed, as we have said, he lives continuously in one small 
country village, where the social circle is extremely limited, 
and where communication with the outer world is incon- 
siderable and infrequent — the speech of every individual 
does not represent a uniform dialect, as spoken by any 
single class or community, but is, in reality, a compromise 
between the characteristics of several different dialects. 
Consider the case of a wealthy merchant or banker. He 
spends part of his time in the city, where he associates 
with persons employed in business similar to his own, some 
of them his equals in education and social status, others 
belonging to a different social class, and therefore, often, 
to a very different speech community. Our banker or 
merchant has been at a Public School, and at a University ; 
he has spent, perhaps, some years in foreign travel as part 
of his general training ; his wealth enables him to reside in 
London for part of the year, and also to live in baronial 
fashion in the country for the other part. Outside his 
hours of business he associates with his fellow merchant 
princes, but also with men of the liberal professions, with 
diplomats, members of Parliament, military men, country 



SOCIAL AND LINGUISTIC CONDITIONS 101 

gentlemen, peasants, and peers. It is impossible to classify 
such a man merely as either a city merchant, a man about 
town, a University man, or a country gentleman. He is each 
and all of these in turn ; he belongs to several communities 
at once, and his speech inevitably bears traces of his contact 
with, and sojourn among, every one of them, though one 
or other will preponderate in determining his mode of 
utterance. It is probable that in the case of our hypo- 
thetical merchant prince, the speech of the more dis- 
tinguished classes, among whom he moves as an equal, will 
to all intents and purposes be his, especially if he has been 
familiar with it from childhood ; but he will not entirely 
escape the influences of the other class, occupational, or 
regional dialects with which he is brought into contact. 
In fact, every speaker of the ' standard ' English dialect is 
subjected to the same complex linguistic influences, and his 
speech necessarily bears traces, however slight these may 
be, of other forms of English, whether they be the dialect 
of a class, of a province, or a blending of both. In the 
same way, no provincial dialect is completely uninfluenced 
by standard English on the one hand, and by neighbouring 
local forms of speech on the other. 

It is a remarkable thing how comparatively homogeneous 
the standard English dialect actually is, and how this form 
of our language may be heard, with a uniformity of pro- 
nunciation and intonation in which minor differences 
appear to be merged, in the mouths of the educated upper 
classes in all parts of the country. 

This degree of uniformity is due to the free intermixture 
of all people of a certain amount of wealth, which is 
rendered possible by the facilities of modern locomotion. 



102 DIFFERENTIATION OF LANGUAGE 

This process of unification is begun at those great 
meeting-places for the wealthy youth of England — the 
Public Schools and the older Universities. 

This linguistic influence is further carried to all classes of 
the population, in every nook and corner of England, by the 
clergy, and to a lesser extent by the national schoolmaster. 

The fact is that never, under any social conditions, 
whether these be the most simple and primitive, or the 
most complex imaginable, is the isolation of any group of 
speakers from outside influences absolutely complete. The 
members of a small linguistic group or community may — 
indeed, do — enjoy a far greater frequency of intercourse 
among themselves than do any of them with the members 
of communities outside. In a primitive state of society it 
is difficult to draw a distinction between the Homestead, 
which includes the members of one family and their 
dependents, and the Hamlet. But the influence of external 
communities, too, must of necessity be exerted to some 
extent — directly in some cases, in others indirectly. Thus, 
no dialect can possibly possess absolute uniformity, for the 
external influences do not affect all the members equally. 
New and 'foreign'' tendencies are acquired by some 
members and not by others. 

A group of families who reside in proximity, in the 
same hamlet, (or even the divisions of one and the same 
family) may represent so many separate communities. 
The isolation of one such family or division from another 
may not be great, but it is sufficient to allow of each being 
subject to slightly different external speech influences, or 
reacting in a slightly different way to the same influence. 
One family may acquire this peculiarity from the speakers 



RELATIVE UNIFORMITY OF SPEECH 103 

of another village, while another family takes on quite 
a different habit or tendency. If we took as a test the 
possession, or the reverse, of these particular habits of 
speech, it would be necessary to classify the two families 
as forming two slightly distinct communities, speaking two 
slightly different dialects. On the other hand, the points 
in which there was linguistic agreement between the 
families of the same village would be far in advance, in 
number and degree, of those in which they differed ; so 
that, bearing in mind the actual facts, we should be justified 
in asserting that the dialect of the village or homestead 
was uniform, in the relative sense that the members of that 
particular village community showed a greater linguistic 
affinity with each other, than with any other group or 
groups of speakers. 

It is in this qualified and relative sense, that we speak of 
the uniformity and homogeneity of Primitive Aryan or 
Primitive Germanic speech. We cannot conceive of any 
considerable collection of human beings whose speech 
should not present at least that degree of dialectal 
differentiation, which must exist between the different 
families or households that make up the community as 
a whole. The two principles — individual variation and 
collective unity — are for ever contrasted in language. As 
Paul has said (Principien, p. 55), it belongs to the nature 
of language, as a medium of social intercourse, that the 
individual speaker should feel himself to be in agreement 
with his fellows. 

Divergencies which originally arise in a single family 
may, in time, spread to one or more other families, and 
thence to the whole tribe. If a group of closely allied 



104 DIFFERENTIATION OF LANGUAGE 

families move off from the rest of the tribe, and migrate 
to a distant area, the slight peculiarities which in their 
original seats differentiated their speech from that of 
their fellow-tribesmen may form the starting-point for 
divergencies of considerable magnitude. 

It is possible that the beginnings of the dissimilar 
tendencies among the various Aryan languages in the 
treatment of lip-modified back consonants, and of the 
' palatalized 1 or partly -fronted consonants, may have arisen 
as slight dialectal divergencies within Primitive Aryan itself. 

It is important to realize that the gradual dying out of 
the old local dialects, which is at present going on, and the 
levelling up and down of speech, throughout our own 
country, to a type which appears to offer but an insig- 
nificant degree of variety, is not a purely natural process. 
There is no natural tendency in a language which is 
already differentiated into various dialects, to become 
uniform ; nor do the impulses towards divergence become 
weaker with the growth of civilization, and the spread of 
education. The phenomenon which we are witnessing 
in England to-day, is that of one dialect being gradually 
substituted for others. That such a substitution should 
occur is not a new thing in the history of language ; it 
depends in our own case upon the prestige of the en- 
croaching dialect, as well as upon social conditions. The 
degree of uniformity with which the standard dialect is 
spoken over a large area, depends upon the extent to which 
the factors of geographical and social isolation can be 
weakened. At the present day, this is undoubtedly effected 
to a certain extent, partly by the mixture of classes, which 
characterizes our social system, partly, also, by the great 



THE DREAM OF A UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE 105 

development in means of communication between different 
parts of the country, which has taken place during the last 
fifty years, chief among which we must, of course, place 
railway extension ; but we must by no means disregard 
the influence of the bicycle and the motor-car. 

Still, it is easy to over-estimate the degree of uniformity 
which exists in English speech, and a minute investigation 
by a trained observer, will reveal differences which are very 
real, but which easily escape the notice of the untrained ear. 
The need of a uniform international language has of late 
years been forcibly urged, and to-day there are probably 
many thousands of persons all over Europe who can speak 
Esperanto. It is interesting to speculate as to the 
probable future of this movement. From what we know 
concerning the changes of languages, it seems probable 
that if this artificial language were really to become 
firmly established in all the civilized countries of the world, 
it could not long retain a sufficient degree of uniformity, 
either in structure, or in pronunciation, to serve the purpose 
for which it was originally created. At the present 
moment, there is a conventional pronunciation which can 
be approximately acquired, with fair ease, by the natives of 
most countries. But, already, every speaker must neces- 
sarily modify the sounds in a certain way, in accordance 
with the speech basis of his mother-tongue. Thus an 
Englishman will diphthongize (5) and (e) to (pu) and (ei) ; 
a Russian will make 6 into (5)— that is, low-back-tense- 
round ; a Swede will either over-round this sound, (o), till 
the effect produced upon foreign ears is that of (u), or will 
attempt to reproduce it by (o). Again, such a sound as 
(u), = high-back-tense-round, will be made by the Swede 



106 DIFFERENTIATION OF LANGUAGE 

into the high -flat -tense -round or the mid -back- tense - 
over-rounded, and by the Frenchman into a high-back- 
tense-round with considerable advancing of the tongue ; a 
Welshman will make (6) and (e) into (5) and (e), and so on. 
This for a beginning. But when once the language has been 
learnt, and has become a traditional form of speech, as is 
presumably hoped by those who advocate its use, its sounds 
will develop on different lines in every country, since, as 
they will be identical with the corresponding sounds in the 
native language, they will, of course, follow precisely the 
same path of change as that which these pursue. Thus 
we should expect that in a few generations Esperanto will 
be different in each country, so far as the sounds are 
concerned. Added to the difficulty of diffusing a uniform 
sound system among widely-separated peoples, each speak- 
ing a distinct language of their own, we must further 
consider the equally formidable difficulty of preserving a 
uniform system of accent, including thereunder both stress 
and intonation. Frenchmen will never, as a nation, acquire 
a system of strong stress on certain syllables of words, 
with weak stresses on the others, such as exists in Italian 
or the Germanic languages. A very slight error in the 
distribution of stress is sufficient to make a word unin- 
telligible. The present writer has repeatedly heard a 
Frenchman pronounce the word ' literature , (literatjur) 
instead of (h't3rat$9) or (h'tratSa), with the result that a 
group of Englishmen who were present, were completely 
baffled as to what he meant. The same Frenchman also 
spoke of the works of (btrnartjau), whom the writer took 
to be a Chinese author, until it appeared from the con- 
versation that Mr. Bernard Shaw (bAnadJo) was referred to. 



POSSIBILITIES OF ESPERANTO 107 

It is difficult, at present, to see how divergencies of this 
kind can be avoided, in the pronunciation of Esperanto ; 
and if they exist, not only will the new language 
lack uniformity from the beginning, but the subsequent 
divergencies in the different countries will be all the 
greater from the fact that the starting-points will be 
diverse to begin with, and the tendencies which mould the 
future destinies of the various forms will be different in 
each case. It may be argued that the facilities of inter- 
national communication are rapidly developing, that the 
geographical isolation between even the mutually remotest 
countries of the world will, in time, be no more insuperable 
than that between the North and South of England at the 
present day, or again, that the increased use of telephonic 
communication may make it as easy to converse with a man 
in St. Petersburg as with one in the same room. We must 
admit that progress in the utilization of steam, electricity, 
and mechanical contrivances generally, has done much, 
and will doubtless do yet more, to break down the isola- 
tion imposed by distance ; but this can never wholly 
disappear — nothing can ever make social intercourse 
between persons who habitually live hundreds of thousands 
of miles from each other, as easy, intimate, and frequent as 
that between individuals living in the same village, or 
between communities separated only by a few miles of road 
or rail. Thus, while the differentiation of language may 
become increasingly slow, the process must always continue. 
The general structure, the word-order, and form of the 
sentence in such an artificial language as Esperanto must 
of necessity be profoundly affected in the different centres 
in which it is cultivated, by the native idiom, since there 



108 DIFFERENTIATION OF LANGUAGE 

are no models, as in the case of Latin, to serve as guides. 
Latin is no longer susceptible of development, so long as 
the classical models are followed ; it is crystallized once for 
all, and any departure from the old usage is jealously 
avoided. Nevertheless, in the Medieval Latinity the 
language is so far a living and traditional instrument of 
expression, that it was variously affected by the native 
dialects of the different countries where it was written, so 
far as structure and idiom are concerned. Immutability 
in speech is inconceivable, so long as it remains a living 
expression of thought and emotion, which has its roots in 
the national consciousness. A ]anguage can only cease 
to change, when it has ceased to live. Change is the 
necessary penalty which is paid for life, by any form of 
speech. If Esperanto, so it would appear, ever becomes 
a living language, it will change, and change in different 
ways among different groups of human beings. In this 
case it will no longer serve as a means of international 
communication. In fact, this purpose can only be realized 
if Esperanto never actually quickens, but always remains 
a mere artificial and lifeless collection of words, pro- 
nounced according to carefully-drawn rules (which must 
be learnt afresh by each speaker, and rigidly adhered to), 
and built up into sentences according to rules upon which 
all the Esperantists must agree. In this case, doubtless, 
it will be possible for students from all parts of the world 
to hold with each other a kind of restricted intercourse 
both by word of mouth and in writing. The interesting 
and curious point will be, that from time to time, the 
natural developments, which are bound to creep in with 
extensive usage, will need to be deliberately suppressed by 



CONDITIONS OF DIFFERENTIATION— SUMMARY 109 

congress after congress, as the heresies of the early Church 
were by the Councils. 

Such is what might be expected, from what we know of 
the differentiation of language, to happen to Esperanto, as 
to any other living form of speech, which has a wide 
geographical diffusion. 

In the last chapter we dealt with the way in which the 
language of an individual changes, and also discussed 
briefly the various determining causes of sound change 
which various writers have suggested. The present chapter 
has been an attempt to show how, when factors come into 
play which bring a group of individuals into close social 
relationship with each other, and at the same time cut 
them off from other groups of speakers, sound change, 
which is natural and inevitable, in the speech of all groups, 
yet takes place in each group along lines more or less 
different. It has been said that the origin of this differen- 
tiation, was the fact that in each group of speakers a different 
set of tendencies gets the upper hand, while each group 
also, unconsciously, eliminates on different principles. The 
various interplay of individual tendencies produces, in each 
community, a net result which is special and characteristic. 

The relative agreement and homogeneity in the speech 
of the members of the same community was attributed to 
the unconscious subordination and elimination of idiosyn- 
crasies, and the approximation by the individual of his 
speech to that of the average of the community. It has 
been further repeatedly pointed out that the line of develop- 
ment followed by the pronunciation of a community, is 
determined by the particular line of gradual shifting of the 



110 DIFFERENTIATION OF LANGUAGE 

speech basis, and this in its turn is the result of a combina- 
tion of those general factors already referred to. A few 
words may be in place here as to the part which these 
factors play in the speech of the community considered as 
an association of individuals. It is well to observe that 
a given set of factors — the Climatic or the Occupational — 
may, and often do, affect, directly, and equally, all the 
individuals of a community ; but it must not be forgotten 
that this is not necessarily the case. In the case where 
the modifying influences of occupation, for instance, act 
directly, and to the same degree, upon a whole group of 
individuals it is natural to expect that the results, allow- 
ing, of course, for the differences of individual temperament 
and organization, so often insisted upon, will be the same 
for all — that is, that the whole group will undergo the 
same kind of modification of the speech basis. 

On the other hand, it must be remembered that the 
modifying factors may operate by affecting only a few 
individuals of a group directly, and that the results of this 
direct influence upon their speech may, through social inter- 
course, gradually spread to all the other members, although 
the majority of them have never been directly exposed to 
that particular source of modification which induces the 
change in the speech basis. Thus, in the speech of the 
individual, it is possible, theoretically, to distinguish on 
the one hand, those alterations of his speech basis which 
are the result of the direct modification of his habits of 
speech, or of the actual organs themselves, by external 
factors, such as occupation, climate, etc. : and on the 
other those which he acquires by the unconscious 
imitation of other speakers. A single individual might, 



SPREADING OF SOUND CHANGES 111 

under favourable conditions, be the originator of far- 
reaching modifications in the speech basis of a large 
community. For this to come about it would be neces- 
sary that the peculiarity gained ground, in the first 
instance, in a very restricted community, such as a family 
in which the individual, perhaps as father or chief, had 
considerable influence. Thence the change might easily 
affect an ever-widening circle. The smaller the social 
circle involved, and the more limited its relations with 
larger divisions of society, the less chance there is of the 
purely individual peculiarities being swamped and elimi- 
nated by the speech of the majority. Such considerations 
bring home to us how complex may be the question of the 
rise of this or that departure in a language from the 
former speech habit ; since, although, by the time a 
linguistic phenomenon comes under the observation of 
science, it may be wide-spread, and appear in a whole 
family of languages, it may, nevertheless, have had its 
origin in a remote past, in some obscure and subtle 
influence exerted upon a very small speech community. 

It is probable that in the history of a language different 
groups of factors co-operate, with varying force, at different 
periods — now one group predominate in influence, now 
another. But at present our analysis of causes does not 
enable us to do more than suggest in a general way, the 
probable nature of the modifying factors at work ; we are 
for the most part unable to see the precise connection 
between the effects which we chronicle, and any specific one 
of the possible causes which may have produced them. 

Before concluding this chapter, it may be appropriate 
to say something of the conception of ' Laws of Sound 



112 DIFFERENTIATION OF LANGUAGE 

Change? ' Phonetic Laws? or 'Sound Laws? as they are 
variously called, which plays so important a part in modern 
historical linguistic study. 

The phrase is used to express several slightly different 
ideas, but, reduced to the simplest form, a sound law is 
merely a statement of the observed facts of pronunciation 
of a given language at a particular period. The state- 
ment that at the present day in the South of England the 
r-sounds have no trill, but are varieties of a weak point- 
open consonant, is a sound law. This is the simplest 
form of sound law. Again, we may state more precisely 
the phonetic conditions within the word or sentence, under 
which a sound occurs at a certain period in the history of 
a language, as when we say that the definite article in 
English has the vowel (I) when stressed : * he is the one man 
I want to see ' (hi iz 3i wan maen ai w^nt ta si) — (i) when 
unstressed, before a word beginning with a vowel ; (a) when 
unstressed, before a consonant. Both forms are shown in 
' the earth is the Lord's' (fti a]> iz 89 lodz). If we compare 
the form of a word in more than one period of the same 
language, we often note that the sound which was pro- 
nounced in the earlier has been replaced by another sound 
in the later period. The statement that O.H.G (u) has 
' become,' or been replaced by, (au) in Mod. H.G. — e.g., 
O.H.G. mils, Mod. Ger. maus — is a sound law which is 
revealed by historical grammar. Lastly, we apply the 
term 'sound law' to the facts of differentiation revealed 
by the comparison of the forms of the same word in more 
than one cognate language. The result of comparing 
Sanscrit satam, ' hundred,' Gk. etcaTov, Lat. centum, Gothic 
hund, Lithuanian szimtas, is that we can formulate the 



THE IMPORTANCE OF PHONOLOGY 113 

law that a certain original sound, which we will for the 
moment call #, has become s (J) in Scrt., k in Gk. and 
Lat., h ( = %) in Gmc, sz ( = $) in Lithuanian. 

This inquiry into the particular series of substitution of 
sounds, or ' sound changes, 1 which occur in languages at a 
given moment in their life -history is a very important 
part of the modern science of language in its historical 
and comparative aspects. This branch of inquiry, known 
as Phonological investigation, is at the base of all scientific 
linguistic study ; and the reason for this is obvious when we 
reflect that unless we know the habits and tendencies to 
change which characterize a language, or family of languages, 
we cannot identify, with any degree of certainty, the same 
word in the various forms it may assume in different ages 
and in different languages. Until we can take this pre- 
liminary step, we cannot profitably compare the forms of 
one language with the cognate forms in another. We 
could not know that Irish iasc was cognate with Latin 
piscis and with English fish, unless we knew from other 
sources that initial p is lost in Celtic, but becomes f 
in Gmc. 

We have repeatedly insisted in this and the foregoing 
chapters, that change in language takes place unconsciously 
— that there is nothing arbitrary or whimsical about it. 
It has been said that each speaker can diverge to a certain 
extent from the norm in pronunciation without the diver- 
gence being apparent to himself or his fellows. This 
means that every speaker has a certain group of slight 
varieties of sound, upon which he rings the changes, all 
of which, in his consciousness, to his muscular sensations, 
and to his sense of hearing, represent one and the same 

8 



114 DIFFERENTIATION OF LANGUAGE 

sound. Every time he utters a word containing a particu- 
lar sound, he produces one or other of the varieties which 
represent his conception of the sound. He may utter now 
this, now that variety, but he does not go outside the 
limits imposed by his powers of discrimination of sound 
and sensation. We may say, therefore, with the above 
qualification, that the speaker will always pronounce the 
same sound in the same way. What is true of the 
individual is true also of the community ; and, with 
qualifications of the kind just made, we may assert 
that, in a given community, at a given period, the 
same sound will be pronounced in the same way, when- 
ever it occurs under the same conditions — that is, unless 
it be affected by the neighbouring sounds in word or 
sentence. 

This is what is meant by the statement, which the 
school of Leskien, Brugmann, Osthoff, Paul, and Sievers 
have raised into a cardinal axiom of method, that ' sound 
laws admit of no exceptions.'' When apparent exceptions 
are found it means either — (1) That there are combinative 
factors at work which we have omitted from our calcula- 
tion — that is, that the sound is affected by other 
sounds in the same word, or sentence, or by accent. 
(2) That the particular word in which the apparent excep- 
tion occurs, contains a sound which is in reality different 
in origin, or which has been earlier differentiated from 
the other sounds with which we had classified it. 
Cases (1) and (2) necessitate the restatement of our 
law, or the formulation of a new law, as the case may 
be. (3) A word may be borrowed from another dialect 
or language, in which it is pronounced in a different 



INADMISSIBILITY OF « EXCEPTIONS ' 115 

way from the ordinary form in the native dialect. ' Ex- 
ceptions ' of this order are found in all dialects, which 
is what we should expect from what has been said 
with regard to the influence constantly exerted by one 
dialect upon another. In standard or literary dialects 
loan-forms from a variety of dialects are particularly fre- 
quent. In fact, most literary forms of speech are, to a 
great extent, artificial products, and represent rather a 
mixture of elements from several dialects, than any one 
uniform dialect. Hence a literary language is a far less 
favourable field for the observation of the laws of the 
evolution of speech, than an unwritten peasant dialect. 
(4) The apparent exception may be a form which has 
not developed by the ordinary processes of sound change 
from an older form, but due to the Analogy of another 
form in the same grammatical category, or with which 
some mental association has been formed. The question 
of Analogy will be dealt with subsequently. 

Having regard to the above facts, the mutual influence 
of dialects upon each other, and the consequent absence of 
absolute uniformity of speech, except within the narrowest 
limits of small communities, — while even here there are 
the ' dialects ' of the individuals to be reckoned with, — 
it is clear that any statement that such and such a sound 
becomes such and such another, at a given period in a 
given dialect, can only be an approximation to the actual 
facts. Thus, when we say that the eighteenth-century 
English vowel (se) became (a) in the standard English of the 
next century — e.g., eighteenth-century (psest, lsef, psej>) = 
present-day (past, laf, paj?) — we select a particular average 
type from among several varieties of pronunciation. If 

8— 2 



116 DIFFERENTIATION OF LANGUAGE 

we were to examine the pronunciation of these words by 
a hundred Englishmen at the present day, all from more 
or less the same class, and who had received the same 
kind of education, we might possibly find a dozen or more 
slightly different vowels among them, all of which might 
be roughly classified as varieties of long (a), while some 
of the number might possibly retain some form of the 
eighteenth-century vowel. The individual varieties of 
the first class would come under our law, while the others 
would be classed as dialectal variants, due to the influence 
of provincial forms of speech, in which the law did not 
obtain — that is, in which the change of (se) to (a) had 
not taken place. A full and complete history of a 
language would involve an account of the speech of every 
individual. 

In the spelling of Middle English many dialectal 
varieties of pronunciation, and doubtless also of individual 
peculiarities, are expressed; but in a highly -cultivated 
literary language the spelling is usually crystallized, and 
expresses merely a general average of the extant pronun- 
ciations, the same symbol being used by ' correct ' writers 
without regard to differences. Thus we must be prepared 
to admit that such symbols as Greek co, Latin u, Gothic 
ai, which, for practical purposes of philological statement 
and investigation, we consider as representing severally the 
same sound, (o, u, ai) respectively, with perfect consistency, 
may in reality have been conventionally used, in the same 
words, by writers whose pronunciation differed more or less 
considerably. In all cases, however, until a spelling has 
become absolutely fixed, like that of classical Greek and 
Latin or Modern English, it is safe to assume that the use 



INDIVIDUAL DIVERSITY 117 

of the symbol is fairly consistent, and that it expresses, 
at the worst, a group of closely-related varieties of 
sound. 

So much stress has been laid upon the varieties which 
exist in what is treated for scientific purposes as a unity — 
namely, that group of individual dialects which we call a 
single language, or homogeneous dialect — because these 
differences, although they are not lost sight of by philo- 
logical scholars when they assert that the laws of sound 
change admit of no exceptions, and speak of ' uniform ' 
languages and dialects, are yet very apt to be totally 
ignored by less experienced students, to the great detriment 
of method, and obscuring of ideas. Each individual, we 
must remember, pronounces the same sound, whenever it 
occurs, according to the character of his speech basis, 
and what is true of the individual is true also of 
the community. The net result of the regularity and 
consistency of individual habit and tendency, is con- 
sistency of general tendency in such a collection of 
individual dialects as goes to make up what we call a 
language. 

With these considerations as a background of our con- 
sciousness, we may accept the statement that sound laws 
admit of no exceptions. Unless this were true, if, 
indeed, sound change were the result of chance or of 
whim, then, as Leskien said years ago {Declination im 
Slavisch und Deutsche 1877, p. xxviii), language, the 
subject of our investigations, would be incapable of 
scientific treatment, and there could be no science of 
language. 

Sound laws are not of the nature of natural laws, since 



118 DIFFERENTIATION OF LANGUAGE 

they have not a universal application to human language 
in general, but only hold good of a specific dialect at a 
given time. A sound law is merely a statement of a fact, 
or a sequence of facts, but does not include a statement 
of general conditions, under which these are bound to 
occur, nor an indication of the universal causes of the 
phenomena which are recorded. 



CHAPTER VI 

LINGUISTIC CONTACT 

We have already seen how the speech of each individual 
within a given community presents certain characteristic 
personal peculiarities. Every individual speaker affects, 
and is affected by, the speech of every other speaker with 
whom he comes into contact. Similarly, the language of 
a small community influences, and is influenced by, the 
dialects, more or less closely related, of neighbouring 
communities. 

This process of action and reaction of one form of speech 
upon another goes on wherever two or more individuals 
or communities are brought into social relations with 
each other. If it is traceable in the case of communities 
whose forms of speech are closely related, or are merely 
dialects of the same language, the effect produced by 
widely different, or totally unrelated languages, upon each 
other, is still more considerable. 

The contact between two languages may be either direct, 
by personal intercourse between the speakers, or indirect, 
through the medium of literature. Direct contact comes 
about on the frontiers of two speech areas ; by the trans- 
ference of considerable communities among foreign races, 
either by a peaceful migration and settlement or through 

119 



120 LINGUISTIC CONTACT 

warlike invasion ; or, again, by means of individuals who 
travel among foreign speakers, and sojourn for a greater 
or less period in another country. 

The larger the number of speakers between whom and 
the foreign speakers contact exists, the greater the influence 
upon both languages. Colonization and conquest offer 
the most favourable conditions for linguistic contact on a 
considerable scale, provided that the new race does not 
drive out or exterminate the old. When two races live 
side by side, each preserving their own language, but, from 
the necessities of life, compelled to know, or at least to 
understand, that of the other to a certain extent, as in 
the case of the Scandinavians in England, who were first 
piratical invaders, then settlers, the influence of each 
language upon the other is likely to be profound. Under 
such conditions, there grows up in time, a large section, in 
both communities, which is bi-lingual. Perhaps at last 
the condition of bi-lingualism is reached by practically all 
speakers in each community. When this happens, one or 
other of the languages will gradually die out. The ques- 
tion of which community surrenders its language, will be 
determined by various social, intellectual, and other condi- 
tions. Intermarriage welds the two races into one, and the 
speech which survives as the language of the community, 
bears traces of that which has died out. The language 
which has gone under, may leave traces of its existence 
upon the pronunciation, the vocabulary, and the general 
structure of the language. 

We have already pointed out that when a language is 
acquired by foreigners, the original pronunciation is never 
perfectly preserved, owing to the difference of the speech- 



DIRECT INFLUENCE— SOUNDS AND VOCABULARY 121 

bases. Although, here and there, an isolated individual 
may be able to speak two languages with equal perfection 
of pronunciation, this is impossible in the case of a large 
bi-lingual community. The speech basis of the native 
tongue is transferred to the newly-acquired language, and, 
as a result, the sounds of the latter undergo considerable 
modification. In the case where the native speech is 
acquired by the incoming race, it is maintained that the 
modification of this is far less than that which follows 
from the adoption of the immigrant language by the 
original inhabitants of a country (cf. Wechsler, Gibt es 
Lautgesetze ? p. 97). The adoption of English by the 
Normans illustrates the former, that of the Romance 
languages by Teutons and Celts the latter. 

The incorporation of any considerable proportion of 
foreign elements, into the vocabulary of a language, implies 
a certain amount of bi-lingualism — at least, for a time. A 
bi-lingual speaker will often introduce foreign words when 
speaking his own language, and vice versa. At first, the 
words thus introduced from one language into another, 
are, chiefly, the designations of ideas or objects which are 
familiar to one people, but not to the other. The first 
reason for such loans is the actual necessity which is felt, 
to express a given conception, or to indicate some object 
for which no name exists in the language in use at the 
moment. The fact of a people possessing no name for a 
natural product does not imply any inferiority, though this 
may be inferred, up to a certain point, when the word 
borrowed is the name of some object of industry. On the 
other hand, the necessity of borrowing words which express 
ethical, religious, or political conceptions, most certainly 



122 LINGUISTIC CONTACT 

denotes inferiority of moral and civil development, on the 
part of those who are compelled to seek their mode of 
expression from foreign sources. As a rule the new word 
is adopted at the same time as the idea, or the object 
which it denotes. 

There are two ways of enriching the vocabulary of a 
language, when the need for this arises from the introduc- 
tion of fresh ideas, or new products of human ingenuity : 
one, that which we have hitherto been considering, by in- 
corporating new material from another tongue ; the other, 
by adapting and. combining elements of the native vocabu- 
lary, on the model of the foreign name. An example of 
this is the German vaterland or the Russian otichestvo 
(atitjEstvo), which are translations of the Latin patria. 

The introduction of foreign elements into a language in 
the first instance, usually starts, as we have seen, with an 
individual who is master of both tongues. In employing 
a foreign word, the individual has no intention to intro- 
duce a permanent element into the vocabulary : he merely 
supplies the necessity of the moment. For a word to 
become permanently fixed in a language, it is a necessary 
condition, as a rule, that it should be repeatedly used, 
and that it should be used spontaneously from several 
centres within the community. Foreign words gain a foot- 
ing gradually. At first they are only used among a small 
group of individuals who are closely associated together 
by class, occupation, or nearness of geographical con- 
tiguity. Thence they may spread to other groups of a 
similar nature, and finally to the whole community. 
Some words may never come into general use, but may 
always be confined to the upper grades of the community. 



LOAN-WORDS AND FOREIGN SOUNDS 123 

By the time a foreign element has passed into general 
usage, it is no longer felt to be an alien, but has become 
part and parcel of the native language. 

A foreign word generally gains currency in a form as 
near to the original as the natural pronunciation of the 
community permits. It is very rare that a word retains 
a sound which does not exist in the language into which 
it is borrowed. Still, foreign sounds are occasionally intro- 
duced into a language in isolated words, as, for instance, 
the initial (z) of genie which is pronounced by the educated 
German, or the nasalized vowel in the French envelope 
which still survives in the pronunciation of some English 
speakers. Such foreign sounds, however, are confined to 
the more cultivated classes of a community, and in general 
use, the nearest sound in the native speech is substituted 
for them. 

The original stress of foreign words is preserved long 
after their sounds have been replaced by the native 
sounds. Thus, while the numerous Norman-French words 
in Chaucer contain but few vowel or consonantal sounds 
which do not also occur in native English words, the 
original accent still persists in many, by the side however, 
of another form in which the accent is on the first syllable, 
as in English words — e.g., vertue (Fr.), vertue (Eng.), 
licour and licour, etc.* 

* Sounds which do not occur in native English words, but which 
were maintained in French loan-words, are : (oi) in joie, jointe, etc. ; 
(au) probably still pronounced with slight nasalization in Chaucer's 
day in chaunce, chaunge, etc. (t$«wns£, t$<mndze). Among con- 
sonants, the combination (dz) does not occur initially in English 
words, although common in Norman French : juge, gentil (dzydze, 
dzentil), etc. 



124 LINGUISTIC CONTACT 

The Norman words which are found in English, won 
their way in through the prolonged direct, and intimate 
contact of the two races, which led to a final amalgama- 
tion. As the Normans were scattered throughout the 
length and breadth of the country, they affected all 
dialects equally. The Scandinavian invaders and settlers, 
on the other hand, were confined to certain districts. In 
those districts where they settled, the two races and the 
two languages were gradually fused ; here the contact was 
direct and intimate. But the Scandinavian elements are 
not found in equal numbers in all dialects. In those 
dialects which had no direct contact with Scandinavian 
speech these elements are scanty, and when they exist, 
have spread from other areas where the influence of the 
Northmen was directly exercised. Thus foreign influence 
may pass indirectly to speakers who have had no direct 
contact with the alien race, through the medium of other 
speakers of their own blood, with whom the foreigners 
came into direct relation. 

Still more attenuated, is the influence which one language 
may exert upon another through travellers, or others who 
spend some time in foreign countries, and then return to 
their own country, bringing accounts of strange customs 
or institutions, or articles of native industry. Many 
Indian words have passed into English through the inter- 
mediary of our civil and military officials. These words 
gain currency partly by means of literature, partly through 
direct contact of Anglo-Indians with their countrymen. 
The number of persons, among the governing classes in 
England, who have no connection with India through 
members of their family, or their friends is small, so that 



SUBSTITUTION OF SOUND— INDIRECT INFLUENCE 125 

probably a very large number of Indian words have become 
known to the upper classes of Englishmen, by word of 
mouth, from persons who acquired them direct from Indian 
speakers. On the other hand, the same words are known 
to other sections of the community in this country, only 
in their written form, from books and newspapers. Such 
words will be pronounced by the former class of persons 
with an approximation to their Indian form, and are thus 
in the same position as words acquired by direct contact ; 
by the latter class, however, for whom they have never 
been living elements of a spoken language, they are uttered 
according to the nearest interpretation of the written 
symbols in harmony with their ordinary English values. 
Of course, as India and its institutions become more and 
more widely and directly known, the traditional pro- 
nunciation of Indian words obtains an ever-increasing 
diffusion. 

The changes in pronunciation which words undergo in 
the process of their direct incorporation from living 
foreign languages, are in the nature of instantaneous 
substitution of the nearest native sound for the unfamiliar 
foreign sound. What are known as Acoustic changes, or 
changes due to faulty imitation, occur chiefly in foreign 
words. When once a word has been incorporated and 
thoroughly acclimatized, so that it is no longer felt as 
other than part of the language, it shares in all the changes 
of pronunciation which take place in the language. 

We have now briefly to consider the influence of one 
language upon another as exerted through literature. When 
a foreign word gains a footing in a language, not from a 
living spoken tongue, but from one which is no longer spoken, 



126 LINGUISTIC CONTACT 

which is dead, the only possible source from which it can 
come, is the written remains of the language as preserved 
in literature. The great culture languages of Greek and 
Latin have contributed, and continue to contribute, a 
large proportion of the vocabularies of every European 
language. Only next in importance, from this point of 
view is French, which, from the early Middle Age down 
to the present day, has been regarded as the chief vehicle 
among the modern languages of all that is distinguished 
and polite in Art and Letters. In the case of a living 
language, however, it is difficult to draw the line of dis- 
tinction between influence which comes purely through 
the written form, and that which may be exerted directly 
by the uttered speech upon some individual or group, and 
which has spread from them, by word of mouth and by 
means of the pen, into the language of life and of 
literature. In the case of words borrowed from dead 
languages, however, there can be no doubt. Words from 
such a source acquire the sounds which in every respect 
are normal and natural in the language into which they 
are taken. 

Many words borrowed from Latin into English are, and 
remain essentially, 'learned' as distinct from 'popular' 
words — that is to say, they belong to the language of 
books, and not to that of everyday life. We do not learn 
them as children in the ordinary course of social relations 
with our fellows, but acquire them later from our school- 
master or our school-books. 

But many words which had a ' learned ' origin pass, in the 
course of time, into universal usage in the language of every- 
day life ; they are no longer felt as grand, important words, 



LEARNED AND POPULAR WORDS— ARCHAISMS 127 

but express homely and familiar things or ideas. They cease 
to be ' learned, 1 and become popular. It has been well 
pointed out that ' the true distinction between a " learned " 
and a " popular " word depends not upon etymology, but 
upon usage" (cf. Greenough and Kittredge, Words and 
their Ways in English Speech, p. 29). Such words as 
disaster, contradict, humour, are examples from among 
many, of words of distinctly learned origin, which are 
now in everybody's mouth. Telephone, Telegraph, Phono- 
graph, which are modern concoctions from the Greek, 
have come to be, owing to the progress of scientific and 
practical discovery, among the commonest words, just as 
the inventions which they designate are among the most 
familiar objects of modern life. 

Another form of the process of borrowing words from 
a dead language is the revival of archaisms, or even of 
words which are completely obsolete, from earlier phases of 
the native language. This process is essentially artificial, 
and the old-new words rarely pass beyond the pages of 
the works in which their new birth takes place. At best, 
such revivals survive only in the mannered writing, or the 
painful and studied utterances of an individual, or of a 
literary clique. 



CHAPTER VII 

ANALOGY 

The power of variously inflecting words in order to express 
different shades of thought and syntactic relations, comes 
naturally, in speaking a language of which we have even a 
moderate command. But such a power of ' correctly ' form- 
ing adverbs from adjectives, of expressing past action, or 
plurality, or possession, does not depend upon the capacity 
of calling up the recollection of every individual form which 
is used. No human memory is stored with the past tenses 
of every verb which the speaker uses, with the comparative 
of every adjective, with the plural of every noun. 

Nor is this necessary, for in the moment of utterance 
the formative element required, rises naturally in the mind 
of the speaker, although he may have no recollection of 
ever having heard it in that precise combination in which 
he is using it. The speaker, in fact, remakes for himself 
the conjugations of verbs, the declension of nouns, and so 
on, by the ' correct ' use of certain formative suffixes. Were 
an effort of memory required in each instance, fluent and 
rapid speech would be impossible. 

The fact is that comparatively few types remain in the 
memory, and from these the rest of the forms which the 
speaker uses are generalized, are made according to the 

128 



'RIGHT' OR 'WRONG 5 FORMS 129 

model of those forms which actually are stored in the 
memory. This process is known as Analogy. Certain 
formative suffixes are associated in our minds with certain 
syntactic functions, and, as occasion demands, these in- 
flexional elements, rise quite naturally into the conscious- 
ness, along with the shades of thought and meaning with 
which they are associated. 

Analogy, and not memory for individual forms, is the 
natural process which takes place in the course of living 
utterance. The greater number of forms produced by 
this process are — allowing, of course, for the changes in 
sound which have occurred — identical with those which the 
same process called into existence at earlier periods of the 
language — that is to say, they are historically ' correct. , 
But in some cases new associations have been formed, 
so that the forms which a given generation of speakers, 
habitually, and naturally, call into existence in speaking, 
may differ from those which the speakers of earlier periods 
were in the habit of using. 

The question of whether a form is ' right 1 or ' wrong,' 
is decided by the speech habit of the community at the 
time being. Forms in general use are 6 correct,' those 
which are not in use are ' wrong.'' 

An important point to bear in mind, however, is that, 
whether a form produced by a given speaker, by the 
process we are discussing, be i right 1 or ' wrong,' in the 
sense in which we have just defined these terms, the actual 
process whereby the form is created, is the same in all 
cases. If a speaker makes use of a form which he has 
created according to some type which he has in his mind, 
but which is ' wrong ' in the sense of not being the one in 

9 



130 ANALOGY 

general use in the speech community of which he is a 
member, this arises from the fact that for some reason or 
other his associations, in this particular case, are different 
from those of the community at large. 

The history of every language abounds with forms which 
are new departures from an earlier habit, and which are 
due to the formation of new association groups within the 
minds of the speakers of the generation which gave them 
birth. Words are associated in the mind, in groups, 
according to three main principles : their general affinity 
of meaning ; identity of grammatical function ; similarity 
of form. When more than one basis of association exists 
between a group of words, the association is doubly strong. 

Examples of association by virtue of general affinity 
of meaning are — Natural Relationships : Father, Mother, 
Brother, Sister ; the names of the seasons of the year : 
Spring, Summer, etc. ; names of animals : (a) Wild Animals : 
Lion, Tiger; (b) Domestic Animals: Cat, Dog, Sheep, 
Oxen. In the same way we connect all the cases of an 
inflected substantive, all the persons and tenses of a verb, 
and so on. From this point of view, every word in the 
language naturally falls, in the mind of the speaker, into 
a group of words, linked together, more or less closely, by 
a general association of meaning. Such natural groups 
we may call association groups. 

The second class of association groups, the members of 
which are linked together in our consciousness, are those 
whose basis of association is their community of gram- 
matical or syntactical function. In this way are connected 
all plurals of substantives — dogs, boys, trees, etc. — which 
agree further in expressing the idea of plurality by the 



BASES OF ASSOCIATION— GRAMMATICAL FUNCTION 131 

same formative element. Even when this is not the case, 
and when the idea of plurality is expressed by different 
means, as in mice, houses, children, the association, though 
looser, still exists. Similarly, while all adverbs are asso- 
ciated as possessing a common function, the relations are 
of various degrees of closeness. In the most general way, 
simply as adverbs, hardly, well, here, are associated. But 
we can distinguish more intimately related groups of 
adverbs, such as adverbs of manner — hardly, bitterly, zoell, 
ill. Of these, the first two are peculiarly closely associated 
in possessing the same formative suffix — ly, and the last 
two have the further association of antithesis. Again, we 
may make an intimate group of adverbs of place — here, 
there, everywhere, and so on. 

Passing to verbal forms, all preterites are associated in 
that they express the idea of past action — placed, told, 
rang, went, came. Within the large group of preterites, 
however, the weak past tenses, the strong past tenses, and 
the weak past tenses with change of vowel, form so many 
smaller and more closely related groups of association. 
Thus gave, came, wrote, are more nearly associated with 
each other than they are with sent, charmed, and so on. 
In the case of strong verbs there are small groups which 
have the same vowel sequence — sing, sang, sung; ring, 
rang, rung. 

In speech, the way in which a past tense of a verb is 
formed, depends upon the associations which exist in the 
speaker's mind. Thus, if a speaker had the association 
groups sing, sang, sung, ring, rang, rung, and fling, with 
past part, flung, he might quite naturally form a preterite 
*flang instead of flung. It would be incorrect to describe 

9—2 



132 ANALOGY 

such a process as 'false"* analogy, as is sometimes done. 
The actual process is ' correct ' enough, although the result 
in this case is a form not commonly employed. The speaker 
who makes such a form, merely shows that he has not the 
past tense of fling in his memory, and that he forms one 
on the pattern of two other past tenses which happen to 
be the received forms. The ' correct ' speaker who has 
heard the received form flung, has grown to isolate the 
word from the class of verbs which have the sequence of 
three vowels, and to form an association between it and 
such verbs as stick, stuck, and so on. 

Whenever a speaker uses a form which strikes us as 
4 wrong ' — that, is unusual — we may be sure that there is 
some reason for it ; and the interesting thing is to discover 
the precise association which exists in the speaker's mind. 
If the association is different from that which exists in our 
mind, then the application of the principle of analogy, 
itself essentially the same in all cases, will lead to a 
different result. 

The question of which is the 'regular 1 type within 
a given speech community depends partly upon the number 
of words which form the association group, and partly 
upon the frequency of occurrence. Sweet has pointed 
out (New Engl. Gr., § 538) that in colloquial language 
only common words, as a rule, present ' exceptional ' forms. 
The plural men could never have been preserved had it 
been a word but rarely used. It is one of those isolated 
words which are, as it were, specially learnt at a very early 
age by constant repetition. But if the word man became 
obsolete, or fell into infrequent use, it is inevitable that 
we should form the plural according to the pattern of the 



LEVELLING UNDER COMMONEST TYPE 133 

thousands of other words in English which have -s-plurals. 
Young children, whose knowledge of, and experience in, 
the language is slight, constantly make such mistakes as 
' foots," 1 ' tooths, 1 ' oxes,' and so on, simply because they 
have not learnt that these words are isolated from the vast 
majority of words which take -s-plurals. 

Even in the case of common words, the attraction of 
larger groups often proves too strong, and the ' exceptional ' 
forms tend to disappear. Thus we now say books, and in 
the standard language at any rate, cows, although O.E. had 
bee, which would have produced ' beech ' in Mod. Eng., and 
cy, which would have given ' ky ' (kai), which latter form, 
indeed, persists in Scotland and in some English dialects. 
Hence, it is frequently necessary to assume some additional 
association in order to explain the retention in Mod. Eng. 
of forms which differ from the common type. The O.E. 
neuter plural sceap (Angl. seep) persists in the modern 
plural 'sheep'; and here we may perhaps assume an associa- 
tion with 'flock'' or 'herd,' and regard a 'flock of sheep' as 
a kind of collective noun in which the individual animals 
are lost sight of. Another inevitable association of ' sheep ' 
is with ' cattle.' We may contrast this view of sheep, en 
masse, with that of ' lambs and their dams? when the com- 
parative isolation of the individual mothers scattered over 
a field, with their offspring skipping round them, and the 
plurality of the individuals is forcibly brought home to 
the spectator. 

A curious case is that of the plural fish applied chiefly 
to an article of diet, when the association is probably with 
'flesh' or 'food.' This is a new plural, since the O.E. 
form was fiscas, and therefore demands the assumption of 



134 ANALOGY 

some new association such as that suggested. The form 
fishes, the descendant of the old plural, is applied more 
usually to the living creatures, especially when enume- 
rating, or dealing with different species, as in the title of 
Couch's famous book on British Fishes. 

Words which constantly occur in the same phrase are 
often so closely associated in the mind that one suggests 
the other. Such pairs are : male and female ; king and 
queen ; mother and father ; here, there, and everywhere ; and 
so on. The reason, in the first place, for these phrases 
is that an intimate association of meaning exists between 
the words thus linked together. The result of such associa- 
tion is that the words influence each other formally. The 
word female is from an Old French femelle, Latin femella, 
which normally would appear in Mod. Eng., as (fimel), 
a form heard in Scotch ; but the association with male has 
influenced the second syllable, until many speakers believe 
the word to be a form of male with a prefix : hence the 
still further popular new formation 6 shemale," 1 used 
jocularly. 

In Scotch king is pronounced with a short, tense (i), the 
origin of which can scarcely be other than its association 
with queen (Scotch kwin). Mother in O.E. was modor, 
and the d continued into late M.E. The modern (ft) is 
undoubtedly due to the association with brother, O.E. 
broftor, where the (ft) is original. The association between 
these two words is twofold — they both are names for 
family relationships, and they both have, and have always 
had, the same vowel. When once the open consonant 
was established in mother, this word influenced the word 
father, which in O.E. is feeder and in M.E. fader and f&der. 



ISOLATION FROM ORIGINAL ASSOCIATION-GROUP 135 

The pronunciations (Sir, wlr) for there and where are 
established for the eighteenth century (cf. Ellis, Early 
English Pronunciation, p. 104), and the same pronuncia- 
tion of these words occurs in many popular dialects of the 
present day {cf. Wright's English Dialect Grammar, under 
there and where in Index). It can hardly be doubted that 
we have here, not a normal phonetic development, but the 
result of the association of there and where with here, in 
which word the (i) has arisen by regular sound change : 
(O.E. her, but hwcer, \cer). 

A group of words of cognate origin are sometimes so far 
differentiated in form by different phonetic conditions that 
they cease to be felt as etymologically identical. In this case 
we say that a word has been isolated from its original 
association group. The words doom, -dom (in kingdom, 
etc.), and deem, are all derived from the same original root, 
dom-, but probably no one but a student of the history of 
English associates them together in his mind at the present 
time. Deem, from O.E. deman (vb.), shows a vowel changed 
by the process of i-mutation from an older 6, and -dom has 
sunk to the level of a mere formative suffix, and has no 
independent existence. From the substantive doom a new 
verb has been formed, which, however, has a different 
meaning from that of the original verb deem at the present 
time. It is generally the case that when two words have 
become isolated from each other by change of form, the 
meanings also grow further and further apart, till at last 
there is absolutely nothing which leads to an association 
between them. No English speaker now connects for-lorn 
with the verb lose, and yet the former was originally the 
regular past participle of the latter verb. The old verb 



136 ANALOGY 

f ariose is lost except in the solitary surviving form just 
quoted, and the uncompounded verb lose has a newly- 
formed past participle, which is now, however, of some 
antiquity. The analogy of such a participle as forsworn 
has maintained the fossil lorn; but its meaning has 
diverged considerably, and has grown further and further 
away from that of the simple verb lose, until there is 
nothing left, either in form or meaning, which should serve 
to connect them together in the mind of an ordinary 
speaker. 

It often happens that before the association between 
a group or pair of words is quite broken by change of form, 
Analogy intervenes, and, eliminating some of the deviating 
forms, levels the group all under one type. 

Take the words cool (adj.); to cool, coolness. Here 
O.E. has col, the normal ancestor of cool ; but celan (vb.), 
and celnesse ; (cf. dom, deman). In this case Analogy 
came into play in time to prevent a further differentiation 
of form and meaning, which might have broken all connec- 
tion between the words, and has formed a new verb and a 
new abstract noun. The formal connection, as well as 
that of meaning, between these words and cold is possibly 
still felt by some speakers, but the association is not 
strong enough for them to affect each other formally. In 
the case of the further cognate chill, the association is 
probably entirely one of affinity of meaning. In the last 
case the differentiation is very far back indeed, and consists 
in a very primitive, pre-English difference of vowel and 
of formative suffix, and subsequent English combinative 
changes. 

In cases where cognate forms which have been consider- 



DIFFERENTIATION OF MEANING 137 

ably differentiated by sound changes have resisted the 
tendency to isolate them from their original association 
group, as in the case of foot, which retains its plural feet, 
this is due, as has been said, to the frequency of occurrence, 
but also to the close association of general meaning which 
exists between the singular and plural of the same word. 

It is sometimes said that Analogy hinders normal sound 
change, but this is scarcely accurate. What actually 
occurs is that, although the change is carried out regularly 
enough, yet, in certain cases, some stronger association 
works, with the result of re-creating a form identical with 
the old, on the analogy of some cognate which has not 
undergone the change. In such a case both forms, the 
new creation and that produced by the ordinary processes 
of sound change, are often preserved side by side, not 
infrequently, however, with a differentiation of meaning. 
The wider apart the two forms become, the greater the 
likelihood that each will be specialized for a different 
function. We have seen this to a certan extent in the 
two verbs deem and doom. Another case of a similar kind 
is seen in the two words ghostly and ghastly. The latter 
is the normal phonetic development of the O.E. adj. 
gdstlzc, which in M.E. appears in the form gastlich(e) 
and gastli, with a normal shortening of O.E. a before such 
a consonantal combination as -stl-. This word underwent 
a fronting of the vowel in the seventeenth century (gaestli). 
Then in the eighteenth (ae) was lengthened before -st- 9 
giving a form (gjestli), and this (je) became (a) in the late 
eighteenth or early nineteenth century. Ghostly, on the 
other hand, is a M.E. new formation from the substantive 
gost, when the 6 for O.E. a is perfectly normal. 



138 ANALOGY 

Another example of a similar process is seen in the 
adjectives formed by the suffix -like. This is originally 
cognate with the adjectival and adverbial suffix -It/, both 
being forms of the O.E. Tic. The O.E. suffix is itself 
derived from the old substantive lie = body, form. Thus 
originally wifllc, ' womanly," ' feminine, 1 meant ' having the 
body or form of a woman.' Already in O.E. when used 
as a suffix, the word had doubtless been completely isolated 
from the substantive in the consciousness of the speakers, 
and had become a mere formative element, although the 
association with gell'ce, ' like ' (literally 'having the same 
form '), was probably still maintained. Then in M.E. the 
suffix -Ilk, -llch or -li, was shortened through lack of stress, 
became isolated even from %el%ch, %ellk, and was still 
further emptied of its original independent meaning. 
When this had come about, a fresh class of adjectives 
arose, formed from -Ilk. Thus at the present time -ly, -like 
both exist as living suffixes, the former being principally 
adverbial, and we have the doublets wifely, wifelike, manly, 
manlike, and so on. The two suffixes, it will be noted, 
express different shades of meaning ; the older being purely 
formative of adjectives or adverbs, the latter having the 
more definite sense of ' like a wife ' or ' beseeming a wife, 1 
etc. No doubt the association with the independent word 
like tends to preserve the diphthong (ai) even in the un- 
stressed position. 

The process of Analogy is operative in every period of 
linguistic development, and although attention is usually 
only called to it when it produces a new and strange form, 
it nevertheless comes into play in every utterance of con- 
nected speech. The history of any language shows that 



NEW ASSOCIATION GROUPS 139 

Analogy, besides working as a conservative factor by pro- 
ducing forms that are historically 6 correct, 1 is also per- 
petually causing new departures, due to the gradual shifting 
of association groups which is ever taking place with every 
language which is alive, on the lips, and in the minds, of 
living speakers. These new associations are formed, in the 
first instance, within the individual consciousness, and their 
chance of becoming permanent parts of speech depends 
upon whether they are shared by the community at large. 
If this is not the case, the new departures of individual 
speakers are eliminated by social intercourse with that 
majority of other speakers who have different association 
groups. Just as each community has its own tendencies 
of sound change, which are different in some respects from 
those of other communities ; so also each community has 
its association groups, which are different from dialect to 
dialect. When we come across a dialect whose speakers 
have a different series of associations from those which 
exist in our own minds, we are apt to consider the result 
as ' ungrammatical ' and ' wrong,"* forgetting that there is 
absolutely no test whereby we can gauge the inherent 
' correctness ' or ' falseness ' of mental associations as ex- 
pressed in speech. The human mind plays freely around 
and among the phenomena of speech; and we cannot control 
the subtle conditions which establish links between idea 
and idea, between word and word. 

Within a given dialect certain associations are current, 
and practically universal, and therefore ' correct ' so far 
as that dialect is concerned. The power to speak the 
dialect of a community 4 correctly , — that is, in the 
same way as the members of that community speak it — 



140 ANALOGY 

depends upon possessing the same association groups as 
they. 

In tracing the history of a language, we are constantly 
confronted by forms which are the result, not of natural 
phonetic development, but of analogy, and in this case it 
is our business to endeavour to discover the group of forms 
with which the new association has been established. 
There is no limit to the period, nor to the dialect, in which 
these new formations arise; and experience teaches us that 
they did, as a matter of fact, come into existence and gain 
a permanent footing in the classical languages of antiquity, 
nay, in Primitive Aryan itself; just as they do at the 
present day, alike in polished literary speech, and in 
peasant dialect. 



CHAPTER VIII 

METHODS OF COMPARISON AND RECONSTRUCTION 

The science of language is often divided into two main 
branches, General Comparative Philology of the Aryan 
languages (not to go beyond these for the moment), and 
the special History of the several Families of Aryan speech, 
or of individual languages. The Comparative Philolo- 
gist, as such, is mainly concerned with that original unity 
which has been dissolved ; with the original forms from 
which those of the various families and individual lan- 
guages spring — that is, with the Primitive Aryan mother- 
tongue. The Comparative Philologist in the special 
sense is chiefly occupied with the reconstruction of this 
mother-tongue, and therefore is concerned primarily with 
the points of agreement between the different languages. 
But before he can reach the final unity, the primitive 
mother-forms, he must needs observe how great is the 
diversity among the groups of languages with which he 
deals ; and this can only be accounted for from a know- 
ledge of the special speech habits of the speakers of each 
language. 

The investigation of these habits is the business of 
special students of the history of a single language, or of a 
group of closely allied tongues, such as the Germanic or 

141 



142 METHODS OF COMPARISON AND RECONSTRUCTION 

Slavonic. By comparing the cognate forms of such a group, 
it is possible to form some idea of a phase of speech-life 
which is more primitive than any actually preserved — to 
reconstruct, in fact, Primitive Germanic or Primitive 
Slavonic. 

But before we can compare words in different languages, 
with any profit, we must be quite sure that those forms 
we are comparing are really cognates — that they really are 
the descendants of the same original form. The closer the 
languages are in relationship, the less difficulty will there 
be in recognising their cognate forms. Thus the merest 
beginner would hardly doubt the affinity of O.E. fot, 
' foot,' Gothic fotus, O.Norse fotr, O.H.G. fnoz. Even 
if he went further, and ascertained that ' foot ' in Scrt. 
was pad-, pad-, in Greek 77-0^5, in Latin pes he might 
surmise that these were all forms of the same word which 
is found in the Germanic languages. The tests of identity 
of origin, are form and meaning. But, since related 
languages often develop on widely differing lines, the form 
frequently undergoes very remarkable changes, and the 
meaning may vary so greatly, that it is not always easy 
to see how this or that particular shade of significance 
becomes attached to a particular root. 

The science of Comparative Philology has been gradually 
built up, until we are now often able to assert with confi- 
dence, the original identity of words, which, a few years ago, 
no one would have dreamed of connecting with each other. 
This is made possible by our ever-increasing knowledge of 
the laws of sound change within the individual languages. 
By this means it is possible gradually to divest a form of 
its more recent peculiarities, and to reconstruct its earlier 



TESTS OF IDENTITY 143 

phases, so that many old friends emerge, as it were, from 
disguise. But in the beginning it was necessary to start 
with such words as from their nature, admitted but little 
change in meaning, and whose form in several tongues was 
sufficiently recognised to prohibit any reasonable doubts of 
identity. The classes of words most suitable for purposes 
of comparison, in the beginning, are words which express 
concrete and familiar objects, such as the natural relation- 
ships — father, mother, brother, etc. ; names of parts of the 
body — head, eyes, ears, feet, etc. ; names for the earth, the 
sky, water, the wind, heat, cold, snow ; names of the most 
widely distributed plants and animals. Further, we should 
expect to find the designation of the numerals, at any rate 
up to ten, the common property of men whose ancestors 
had, in ages however remote, spoken one and the same 
language. These are the kind of words upon which the 
foundations of Comparative Philology are laid, and when 
these are built with care and thoroughness, the way is 
paved for further progress. Now, when, in the case of 
words in different languages of whose identity there can 
be no reasonable doubt, even from the beginning, we 
observe a regular permutation of sounds constantly re- 
curring throughout a series of languages, when the differ- 
ences between the languages are always of the same nature, 
we are able to lay it down as a general principle, based on 
observation, that such and such a sound in this language 
corresponds with such and such a sound in that. We 
proceed upon the assumption that the same changes will 
always occur, under the same conditions, in the same 
language ; if we find in a large number of cases that when 
Greek, Latin, etc., have p, Germanic shows yj we expect 



144 METHODS OF COMPARISON AND RECONSTRUCTION 

that this will always be the case, when the conditions are 
the same. In those cases where Greek p does not corre- 
spond to f in Germanic, we assume, either that the p in 
question does not represent the same original sound as 
that which we know becomes/" in Germanic, or that there 
are conditions present which differentiate the case from 
others with which we are familiar. These conditions it 
then becomes our business to discover. 

We do not believe that Greek and Latin are derived from 
Sanscrit ; nor Germanic from Greek or Latin ; but rather, 
that they are all derived from a common ancestor now 
long dead. Therefore, we do not state our sound law in the 
form of saying that Sanscrit, Greek, and Latin p becomes 
f in Germanic ; but that a Primitive Aryan p is retained 
in the former three languages, but has become f in 
Germanic. Having gained, then, some knowledge of the 
precise way in which the groups of languages we are 
comparing, agree with, or differ from each other, and, 
further, a knowledge of some of the principal laws of 
sound-change of each of the derived languages, we ask 
what were the original forms from which those forms which 
we know have developed. In other words, the question 
we try to solve is, which of the forms before us is most 
primitive, which preserves most faithfully the features of 
the original common mother. The reconstructed forms 
of Primitive Aryan or Primitive Germanic which, accord- 
ing to present philological method, figure so largely in 
comparative and historical studies must not be taken too 
seriously therefore ; these merely record the opinion that 
this or that feature in this or that language is primitive 
and original, and in assigning such and such a form as 



'SEEK' AND 'BE-SEECH' 145 

the common ancestor of a group of forms from various 
languages we must be prepared to show how each is 
derived from it. 

In tracing the history of a word, root, or grammatical 
form in a single language, we get, as a rule, more light 
upon it the further we can go back ; and by allowing for 
the various isolative and combinative sound changes which 
have affected it, we are gradually able to show the original 
identity of the root with that which occurs in a con- 
siderable number of words. But so long as we keep to 
one language we can only discover the principle of those 
changes the conditions of which were present at some 
time during the period of which we have an historical 
record of that language. Thus if we were dealing with 
the history of the word seek in English compared with 
he-seech^ we should first inquire what was the oldest 
recorded form of these words. A glance at an etymo- 
logical dictionary, or, better still, at an ' Anglo-Saxon ' 
dictionary, would reveal the fact that in both cases the 
infinitive was sec (e) an, with nothing to show that the 
present difference between the final consonants of the two 
words existed. In Middle English we find that seken, 
sechen, beseken, besechen, all occurred ; and, further, that in 
the present-day English dialects seek, seech, beseek, beseech, 
are in use in different parts of the country. Now, the 
Mod. Eng. ' ch- ' (t$) sound presupposes a different sound 
in O.E. from that which has become k in Mod. Eng., 
and that sound, we should find, if we consulted an O.E. 
grammar, was certainly pronounced in the O.E. sec(e)an. 
It was probably el front -stop consonant, and it invariably 
develops into the Mod. Eng. ' -ch' (t$) ; at any rate, in the 

10 



146 METHODS OF COMPARISON AND RECONSTRUCTION 

South and Midlands. At this rate the M.E. sechen would 
appear to be normally developed from O.E. sec (e) an. 
How are we to account for the M.E. and Mod. Eng. forms 
with -k f Certainly not by assuming an ' exceptional ' 
change of -c (front-stop) to (k). If we look at the paradigm 
of the O.E. verb, it appears that in West Saxon it ran as 
follows in the Pres. Indie. Sing. : id sece, \u secst, he seep ; 
and in M.E. the same texts which have ich seche in 
1st person singular, and seclien in the Inf., not infrequently 
have sekst, sek\ in the 2nd and 3rd persons. The O.E. 
spelling does not express any difference of pronunciation ; 
but the M.E. spelling shows a back-stop in the two last 
forms, and this implies a corresponding distinction in O.E., 
although this is not expressed in the written forms of 
that language. What conditions have these two forms in 
common, which distinguish them from the 1st Pers. and 
from the Inf. ? They both have voiceless open consonants, 
s and \ respectively, immediately after the c. May we not, 
then, formulate tentatively the law that in O.E., before c 
had developed into its present sound, — perhaps even before 
it had reached the pure front-stop stage, — when it was 
followed immediately by a voiceless open consonant, it 
became a bach-stop (k) ? This is borne out by other 
examples. We have thus accounted for the existence of 
two forms with ^-sounds in the conjugation of the O.E. 
verb secan. But we have still to explain how this sound 
got into the 1st Pers. Pres. Indie, and the Inf. 

We are perfectly justified, from what is known of the 
habits of speakers, in assuming the possibility that a 
whole verb might be formed on the Analogy of two 
persons, especially when these are so frequently used as were 



< SEEK ' AND < SOUGHT > 147 

the 2nd and 3rd persons singular in O.E. and M.E. We 
should explain M.E. seJcen, etc., and Mod. Eng. seek in 
this way. For some reason the analogy has not taken 
place in beseech, which retains the O.E. c- form unaffected 
by the other persons. In the case of the dialects above 
referred to, the Analogy affects sometimes the compounded, 
sometimes the uncompounded verb. 

This digression from the general statement is intended 
to show that reference to the earlier forms of a language 
may tell us something which cannot be gathered from its 
latest forms. The varying conditions which subsequently 
differentiated O.E. c into Jc on the one hand, and on the 
other to ' -cW (t$), were present, and expressed in the 
spelling of English itself. But if we now proceed to 
inquire the reason of the differences of vowel between 
seek or seech, on one hand, and that of the past tense 
sought, on the other, we can get no light, so long as we 
confine our attention to English. As far back as we 
can go in the history of that language, we find this differ- 
ence of vowels, but nothing to account for it. O.E. has 
secern — sohte, and here we can note that the variation is 
e — 6, an interchange which occurs in a large number of 
associated pairs of words in O.E., it is true ; but this fact 
does not help us to explain the change. 

The next step, therefore, is to inquire what is the 
corresponding form to O.E. secan in the other Gmc. 
languages. It is possible that some of these may retain 
some feature which O.E. has lost, and which may explain 
the interchange of vowels. The corresponding verb in 
Gothic is sokjan, in O. Sax. sokian, in O.H.G. saohhan. 
From these forms we learn that O.E. is peculiar in 

10—2 



148 METHODS OF COMPARISON AND RECONSTRUCTION 

having e in the root of the Inf. It appears that both 
Gothic and O. Sax. have o, which vowel, as we have seen, 
also occurs in O.E. in the Pret. O.H.G. uo appears in a 
large number of words in which Gothic and O. Sax. have o. 
We are, therefore, justified in assuming that 6 is the most 
primitive form of the vowel in the inf. Why has O.E. e 
here ? Now, both Gothic and O. Sax. possess a feature 
which does not appear either in O.H.G. or in O.E., and 
that is that they preserve a suffix -jan or -ian in the inf. ; 
that is to say that j or i appears in these languages 
immediately after the k. The sound of j, we have reason 
to believe, was that of a front-open consonant, closely 
related, from the position of the organs of speech and the 
area employed in its articulation, to ?', which is a high- 
front vowel. Now, -jan is a very common verbal suffix in 
Gothic, and in all cases where O.E. and Gothic agree in 
possessing certain verbs, we find that the vowel of these 
verbs, if 6 in Gothic, is e in O.E. ; if a in the former 
language, e in the latter; if u in Gothic, then y in 
English — that is, that where Gothic has a back vowel 
English shows a front in the inf. of corresponding verbs, 
when there is reason to believe that aj originally occurred 
in. the suffix. For example : Goth, drobjan, ' disturb,' 
; trouble,' O.E. drefan; Goth, fodjan, i feed,' O.E. fedan; 
Goth. g8L-mdtja?i, ' meet,' O.E. metan, and so on. Ex- 
amples of Goth, a = O.E. e, under the same conditions, 
are : Goth. nam?ijan, ' name, 1 O.E. nemnan ; Goth, satjan, 
' set, 1 O.E. settan ; Goth, warjan, 6 defend,' O.E. werlan. 
Examples of Goth, u = O.E. y are : Goth, bugmn, 4 buy,' 
O.E. by'cgun ; Goth, fulljan, ' fill,' O.E. fyllan ; Goth. 
huggrjan (= hungrjan), 'to hunger, 1 O.E. )iyngr(i)an. 



ANCESTRAL FORMS OF OLD ENGLISH 149 

In all these cases Gothic shows consistently a back vowel 
in the root, followed by j ; O.E. invariably has in the 
same words a front vowel in the root, but has usually no 
j or i following. We need not pause here to discuss 
under what circumstances j is also preserved in O.E., but 
may note that when it is lost in that language the pre- 
ceding consonant is doubled, provided that the sound 
immediately preceding the consonant is not a long vowel 
(cf. settan and bycgan, where eg is the O.E. mode of 
writing a long voiced stop). 

In all the above cases, although only Gothic forms are 
here given, O. Sax. and O.H.G. agree in showing 6 (O.H.G. 
uo), a, and u respectively where O.E. has e, £, and y. The 
inference we draw is that 6, a, and u are more primitive than 
the English vowels in these words, and that the special 
quality of these, front instead of back, is due to a change 
in the earlier sounds produced by the following j or i. This 
is still further borne out by the fact that o, etc., are pre- 
served in O.E. itself, in cases where the root is not followed 
by j or i. Thus by the side of metan we have in O.E. the 
substantive ge-?not, by the side offedan, foda, ' food, 1 just 
as we have soh-te by the side of sec(e)an. With O.E. 
nemnan we may compare the sub. nama, and with Jyllan 
the adj. full. The comparison of the other Germanic 
tongues, in deciding the question of the difference of 
vowel in sec(e)an — sohte, showed us that O.E. must also 
once have had an inf. *sokjan 9 since it enabled us to 
supply the lost j which effected the change from the more 
primitive vowel o, preserved in Gothic and O. Sax. The 
forms in the cognate languages also made it certain that 
the original vowel was the same as that preserved in the 



150 METHODS OF COMPARISON AND RECONSTRUCTION 

unchanged forms in O.E. itself. Another fact which 
emerges from our examination of the above forms is that 
the particular change in question, which has already been 
referred to in an earlier chapter of this book, although it 
took place before the earliest English documents, yet 
occurred after English had developed into a dialect, or 
group of dialects, independent from the parent Germanic. 
Had the change affected Primitive Gmc. before its dif- 
ferentiation, we should find traces of it in Gothic ; whereas 
we find none, and only signs of its beginning in O. Sax. 
and O.H.G. This process of i- or j-mutatio?i, as it is 
called, arose independently in English, and, at a later 
date, in most of the other Gmc. languages. It affects all 
back vowels in O.E. which occur in the roots of words 
containing originally j or i in the next syllable or suffix ; 
not only in verbs, as in the examples given above, but in 
all words whose suffix fulfils, or once fulfilled, the necessary 
conditions. 

When once the knowledge of such a process has been 
gained by a comparison of the cognate languages, it can 
be utilized for purposes of reconstruction, without a 
further appeal to the comparative method. Thus, if we 
find the O.E. forms betst, ' best, 1 fyrst, ' first," compared 
vj\\h fur-dor, we should be justified in assuming the possi- 
bility of an old superlative suffix Ast, which has changed 
a and u to e and y in these words, even if we had not, for 
the moment, the confirmatory evidence of Gothic bat-ist-s, 
' best/ 

We see that a knowledge of the sound changes peculiar 
to the individual languages helps us to reconstruct primi- 
tive forms which may be of use in a wider comparative 



GOTHIC TUNpUS AND OLD ENGLISH TOp 151 

survey ; but this special knowledge of an individual 
language can only be gained, at first, by knowing what was 
the starting-point of the language we are considering, and 
this knowledge, again, can only be acquired with certainty 
by the help of the cognate languages. Our Primitive 
Gmc. forms, which we may reconstruct from English alone, 
must be tested by comparing them with the other Gmc. 
languages. If from our knowledge of the laws of each, 
we reach the same result in reconstruction, no matter 
from which we start, then we may have a very fair convic- 
tion that our reconstruction is right. 

But it sometimes happens that the consideration of the 
Gmc. languages alone leaves us in the lurch, and that we 
are stopped by what are insuperable difficulties, so far as 
the light shed from these alone reaches. 

If, for instance, we compare the Gmc. forms of so 
common a word as ' tooth, 1 we find that in O.E. we have 
to]>, in Goth, tivrtyus, in O.H.G. zand ; and we may well 
ask what is the relation of these forms to each other. 
Gothic and O.E. agree in the initial and final consonants 
of the root t and \ ; there is, therefore, the a priori reason 
of greater frequency, for assuming that t and ]> are more 
primitive than the O.H.G. z and d. On the other hand, 
Gothic and O.H.G. agree in having a nasal consonant 
after the vowel, and we must assume either that O.E. has 
lost an n, or that Gothic and O.H.G. have both introduced 
one in this word. According to the same general prin- 
ciple of relative frequency of occurrence, it is more 
reasonable to assume that these languages preserve an 
original nasal here, where O.E. has lost it. It is im- 
probable that two languages so far separated geographi- 



152 METHODS OF COMPARISON AND RECONSTRUCTION 

cally as Gothic and O.H.G., should have developed, 
independently, a habit of infixing nasals. We naturally 
next inquire why, in this case, O.E. has lost an original 
nasal which is preserved by Gothic and O.H.G. There are 
plenty of examples of words in which the latter languages 
have a nasal, but in which O.E. has not : O.H.G. gans, 
6 goose,' O.E. gos ; Goth, munips, O.H.G. mund, ' mouth, 1 
O.E. mit'p ; Goth. sin]>s, 'road, 1 'journey,'* O.H.G. sind, 
also Goth. ga,-smpja, O.H.G. gi-sindo, ' travelling com- 
panion,' ' servant' ; O.E., sip, ge-sJp ; Goth, anpar, O.H.G. 
andar, ' other,' O.E. uj>er ; Goth, and O.H.G. Jiansa, 
'host; O.E. has; O.H.G. samfto, 'soft,' O.E. soft. These 
examples suffice to show the conditions under which the 
nasal is lost in O.E. It will be observed that in all the 
above cases, there is in Gothic, immediately after the 
nasal, and in O.E., following the vowel, one or other of 
the three consonants, s, f, or p — that is to say, a voiceless 
open consonant. 

The agreement of Gothic and O.E., as regards the con- 
sonants, is a strong indication of these being primitive, so 
that we can formulate the law that O.E. loses a nasal 
(n, or m) before voiceless open consonants, and we can re- 
construct for prehistoric O.E., forms with the nasals as 
they occur in Gothic. 

It is further to be noticed that the vowel which 
precedes the nasal undergoes in O.E. a compensatory 
lengthening, and that in cases where Gothic and O.H.G., 
and therefore presumably the parent Gmc. also, have the 
combination -an + voiceless open consonant, O.E. has 6 — 
that is to say that in this case, the original a has been 
rounded as well as lengthened. We may now return to 



*TAN)> AND *TUNj> BOTH PRIMITIVE 153 

O.E. top, and in the light of the above examples and 
remarks, we see that we shall be justified in reconstructing 
therefrom an earlier form *tan\-, which, allowing for the 
regular differences of the consonants, agrees entirely with 
the O.H.G. zand. The Gothic form, on the other hand, 
as we have seen, is tun]>-us instead of tan]>-, as we might 
have expected on the analogy of an\ar compared with 
O.E. oper. 

Is there any process of change peculiar to Gothic 
whereby a form tan\- could become tun}- ? There is 
none ; and the Gothic forms with -un-, such as munps, 
quoted above, and ~kun\s, ' known, 1 O.E. city, O.H.G. 
chund ; juggs (=jurjg-), 'young,' O. Fris., O.S., O.H.G. 
jung; hund, 'hundred' ; O.E., O. Sax. liund, O.H.G. hunt, 
etc., show that Gothic, as a rule, agrees with the other 
Gmc. languages in preserving the combination -un- in 
cognate words. Indeed, the agreement is so complete, 
and so widely extended among the Gmc. languages ; that, 
following the ordinary method, we must assume that 
Gmc. -un- is preserved in all the languages ; and, con- 
versely, that when the derived languages all agree in 
showing this combination it is original. The result of 
this is that we must regard the Gothic form tun\- as 
original : preserved from the parent language, and not 
derived from any other form of the same 'root. 1 We 
are therefore compelled to conclude that there were in 
Gmc. two forms of this root : one, turip-, preserved in 
Gothic, and another, *tarip-, from which the O.E. and 
O.H.G. forms, and the O. Norse tannr, from *tan)>-r, 
from *tan\-az, were derived. How are we to account 
for the differentiation of an original 'root 1 into two 



154 METHODS OF COMPARISON AND RECONSTRUCTION 



forms, *tan\- and timp-? The fact itself is common 
enough in Gothic and the other Gmc. languages, and the 
so-called strong verbs offer plenty of examples. The 
following table will illustrate this : 



O.E. 

Goth. 

O.H.G. 

O.E. 

Goth. 

O.H.G. 

O.E. 

Goth. 

O.H.G. 



Inf. Pret. Sing. Pret. PI. 



bind-an 
bind-an 
bint-an 

wind-an 
-wind-an 
vint-am 



band 
band 
bant 

wand 
wand 
vant 



vvmn-an wann 
-winn-an wann 
vinn-an vann 



bund- on 
bund -urn 
bunt-um 

wund- 

wund-um 

vunt-um 

wunn- 

wunn-um 

vunn-um 



Past Partic. 

bund-en ' bind ' 
bund-an-s ,, 
bunt- an ,, 

wund- ' wind ' 
wund-ans „ 
vunt-an ,, 

wunn- ' struggle 
wunn-ans ,, 
vunn-an , , 



Numerous examples also occur of the same 6 root ' 
appearing in different forms. 

Gothic has -hin]>-an, i to catch/ hand-its, i the hand,' 
originally ' that which seizes,"* and lunty-s, ' that which is 
seized, 1 or ' booty ' ; O.E. has hand, and hup, ' booty, 1 
from *hunp-, with the loss of the nasal before -]>-, as in 
mu\, from *murip- ; O.H.G. hant, 'hand, 1 and heri-hunda 
( = O.E. hup), 4 war plunder. 1 Side by side with sin]>s and 
g&-sin]>a, Goth, has the vb. sand-]an, ' send, 1 and O.E. 
sty ^>*swty-, and send-an ^>* sa?id-ja.n, with thej-mutation 
of a referred to above. Besides the changes which occur 
in the strong vb. bindan, Gothic has and-fomd-nan, ' to 
release 1 ; bandi, ' a fetter ' (exactly corresponding to O.E. 
bend, where e is the i- mutation of a) ; and gec-binda, 
6 bond, 1 etc. 

These examples show that this interchange of vowels 
within the same ' root 1 was an established fact in Gmc. 
before its differentiation, since it occurs in all the derived. 



LIGHT SHED BY WIDER COMPARISON 155 

languages. We can, therefore, learn nothing of its origin 
from Gmc. alone. If we go beyond Gmc, and compare 
the forms in the other Aryan languages which are cognate 
with turijpus, etc., we find a curious variety of forms. 
Latin dent-, Gk. o-86vt~> Scrt. dant-, Lith. dant-is, are 
the forms in the principal Aryan languages which we have 
to compare with each other, and with the two Gmc. types 
*tanj>- and tun]>-, which we have found ourselves justified in 
reconstructing. The question now before us is : What 
are the Primitive Aryan types from which the above 
forms are derived, and what is their precise mutual re- 
lationship ? Our comparison of the Gmc. languages 
yielded two types for parent Gmc. ; to what does a wider 
survey lead us ? In the first instance, we may settle the 
question of the consonants. We note that Scrt., Gk., 
Latin, and Lith. all agree in having d- as the initial, and 
-t- as the final consonant of the root ; and in the face of 
this unanimity we must conclude that sounds which all these 
languages have preserved, are the original Aryan sounds. 
Gmc. t = original d- } and }> = original t, are the result of a 
characteristic 6 shifting ' of the older consonants, which, 
with the reservation formulated in what is known as 
Verifier's Law, hereafter to be discussed, invariably pro- 
duces the same results ; so that wherever the other 
languages agree in having d, Gmc. has t, and where they 
have t, Gmc. has ]>, except under the special conditions 
stated by Verner. 

We may now return to the vowels, and for this purpose 
it will be convenient to deal here with the group of vowel 
+ 72, — on, en, an, etc. It might be contended that since 
Scrt., Lith., and Gmc. all agree in possessing a form of 



156 METHODS OF COMPARISON AND RECONSTRUCTION 

the above root with -an-, this must be regarded as a primi- 
tive form ; let us see whether this can be upheld. If -an- 
is to be regarded as a primitive Aryan form, it can only 
be on account of the agreement in the three languages 
which we have just noted. This assumption would imply 
that we regard a primitive -an- as having been preserved 
in Scrt., Lith., and Gmc. We shall do well to examine 
severally the claims of each language to the primitiveness 
of its -a- and -an- sounds. Let us take Scrt. first. Al- 
though this language agrees with Gmc. and Lith. in this 
case, it is at variance with Gk., which has -ov-. The 
same disparity is observable in Scrt. jambha-, ' tooth '; 
Gk. yo/jL(j)o$, yo/jb(f>io^, ' molar ' (which correspond to O.E. 
camb, ' comb '), and in tarn, ' this ' (ace.) ; Gk. tov ; Goth. 
J?an-a ; Scrt. damas, 6 house '; Gk. $6/jlos ; Lat. domus. 
Here we have Scrt. and Gmc. an, am by the side of 
Gk. -ov-, -ofi-. 

But in Scrt. ja?ias, 'race,' we have -en- both in Latin 
and Gk. — genus, yevos ; and the same divergence appears 
in Scrt. bandhus, a 'relative,'' compared with Gk. irevdepos. 
Lith. also shows disagreement with Scrt. here, for its 
cognate is bendras, ' companion.' This is the same root 
which in Gmc. has, as we have seen, the three forms bind-, 
band-, bund-. In Scrt. dnti, ' against, 1 Gk. avrl, Lat. 
ante, Scrt. agrees with Gk. and Latin. 

These examples show that Scrt. -an- is represented in 
Gk. sometimes by -ov-, sometimes by -ev-, more rarely 
by av-. 

If we compare the correspondences of simple a in Scrt. 
without a following nasal, we find the same divergence in 
some, at least, of the cognate languages. 



CORRESPONDENCES OF SCRT. A IN GK. AND LATIN 157 

1. Scrt. a = Gk. a in qjami, 'drive 1 ; Gk. aya), Lat. ago: 
ajras, 'ground 1 ; Gk. aypos ; Lat. ager ; Goth. akrs. 

%. But Scrt. a = Gk. o in pati, 'husband 1 ; Gk. ttoctl^ : 
avi-, 'sheep 1 ; Gk. 0*5 (from *oft?) ; Lat. ovis: katara, 
' which of two '; Gk. Trorepos : dadarsa, ' he has seen '; 
Gk. BiSop/ce, etc. 

3. Scrt. a = Gk. t in asti, 'is 1 ; Gk. iarl ; Lat. est; 
Lith. esti. 

Scrt. asva, ' horse '; Lat. equus : Scrt. ca, ' and '; Gk. re ; 
Lat. que. 

Scrt. pdta-ti, 'he flies 1 ; Gk. Trere-rat, ; Lat. petit, etc. 

We see that the three vowels a, e, o in Latin and Greek 
are all represented in Sanscrit by a ; in fact, e and do not 
exist at all in this language. If, then, Scrt. a be in all 
cases primitive, we must assume that the other languages 
which possess a more varied vowel system have differen- 
tiated an original vowel a into three distinct sounds, a, £, o. 
The alternative is that the three vowels existed in the 
mother-tongue, but were all levelled in Scrt. under one 
sound, a. 

Passing to Lithuanian, this language agrees with Scrt. 
in having a where Gk. and Latin show o : nakt-is, ' night, 1 
Lat. nox ( = *nokt-s); -patis, 'lord 1 ; Gk. ttoctis ; avis, 
' sheep '; Gk. o(f)t?, Lat. ovis. 

On the other hand, Lithuanian agrees with Gk., Lat., 
Gmc. in showing e, thus differing from Scrt. — esmi, ' am "; 
Gk. et/u { = eafju): medus, 'honey 1 ; Gk. pe6v ; O.E. 
medu ( = *medu); O.H.G. metu ; but Scrt. rnadhu: senas, 
'old 1 ; Gk. eVo? ( = *aivo<;) ; Lat. senex. Again, the 
closely-allied Slavonic languages, such as Old Bulgarian 
(or Old Church Slav.), agree also with Gk. in having in 



158 METHODS OF COMPARISON AND RECONSTRUCTION 

cases where Lith. has a : O. Slav, nosti, ' night '; Lith. naktis. 
O. Slav, ovi-tsa, £ sheep'; Lith. avis. This makes it probable 
that o existed in Primitive Lith. also, but was unrounded 
to a in the independent life-history of the language. 

Last we have to deal with Germanic, which, like Scrt., had 
already, in its earliest literary period, no original o sound ; 
at any rate, not in stressed syllables. It can be shown that 
when this vowel appears in the Old Gmc. languages, it is 
either derived by a secondary process from an earlier u, or 
has been preserved in late loan words from foreign languages. 
In all cases where Gk. has o, Gmc. has a in cognate words. 
But it can be established that the sound o underwent a 
change to a within the historic period, since foreign proper 
names which contained the former sound appear in Gmc. 
speech, when borrowed, with a. Thus the Gallo-Roman 
Moguntiacum, ' Mainz,' is Maginza in O.H.G. ; and Vosegus, 
' the Voges, appears with a in O.H.G, as Wascono wait. 
The inference generally drawn from these facts is that up to 
a certain period, parent Gmc. preserved o, which it inherited 
from Aryan ; but that then a tendency arose to unround 
o to a, which tendency naturally affected the loan words 
also. Those words which were borrowed subsequent to this 
change, preserved their o-sound in Gmc. speech (cf. O.H.G. 
Jiocchon, 'to cook," from Lat. coquere). 

If the above reasoning be correct, then Gmc. originally 
possessed the vowel o ; its a is not primitive in those cases 
where it corresponds to o in Gk. and Latin, and therefore 
proves nothing when compared with the a of Scrt. and Litn. 

We have now briefly examined the claims of a in Scrt., 
Lith., and Gmc. successively, to be regarded as primitive 
in cases where Gk. and Latin have the vowel o. We have 



c PALATALIZATION' IN SORT. 159 

seen that Scrt. a corresponds not only to a in Gk. and 
Latin, but also to e and o ; and we are therefore forced to 
admit, either that Gk. and Latin preserve the three original 
sounds, or, at any rate, an original diversity, whereas Scrt. 
has lost it ; or that in the former languages, one original 
sound, without any discoverable difference of conditions, 
has been treated in three different ways. The latter 
possibility we may reject at once on general grounds. For 
the former view there are overwhelming arguments. Of 
these, that which establishes beyond any reasonable doubt 
the primitiveness of Gk. e, is the strongest ; and to it is due 
the conviction, now universally shared by all philological 
scholars, that the Gk. vowel system is far nearer to that 
of the original Aryan than are the Sanscrit vowels. 

There are certain words which have a variety of back- 
stop in Latin, Celtic, and Lithuanian, but which in 
Sanscrit have a sound, expressed in transliteration by the 
symbol c, and usually pronounced (t$), but which is 
classified as a ' palatal,' and was originally, almost certainly, 
a front-stop. The vowel which follows it is always a in 
Scrt. In Gk. these words have it or t, which, for reasons 
into which it is needless to enter here, are known to have 
developed from a back-stop with lip modification. 

This ' palatalization ' in Sanscrit was for a long time 
unaccounted for, since, in other words, Sanscrit agrees 
with the languages above mentioned in also having k — that 
is, a back consonant. 

The explanation was discovered independently by several 
scholars about the same time (see Bechtel, Hauptprobleme, 
p. 62). It is this : In cases where the European languages 
(Gk.. Latin, etc.) have a or o following the consonant, 



160 METHODS OF COMPARISON AND RECONSTRUCTION 

Sanscrit agrees with them in having a back consonant; 
in those cases where the former languages have e 9 Sanscrit 
has c, the front consonant. A natural inference is that in 
Sanscrit also, e formerly occurred in those cases where it is 
found in Gk., Latin, etc., and, e being a front vowel, fronted 
the preceding consonant. After the fronting process 
was complete, Sanscrit levelled e under a, the series of 
changes probably being: e — oe — a. If this is so, then 
prehistoric Sanscrit must have agreed with all the European 
tongues in possessing £, and thus the last argument against 
accepting this as the original sound disappears. 

Examples are : Scrt. pa?ica, ' five," Gk. irevre (from 
* penkwe) ; Lat. guinque (from *~kwenkwe, from *penkwe). 
Scrt. catvdras, 'four,' Gk. reaaapes and irkvoape^ 
(Boeotian), Lith. keturi, Old Irish cethir. On the other 
hand, Sanscrit has kdMa, ' hip -joint ' = Lat. coxa; also 
kakud, ' summit ' = Lat. cacumen. 

When it was thus established that Sanscrit a was not 
original in cases where the other languages had £, it was 
further asked, Why should Scrt. a, which corresponds to 
o in Gk. and Lat., etc., be original either ? No reason could 
be shown for the development in these languages of o from 
an earlier a ; but, on the other hand, belief in the primitive- 
ness of the Scrt. vowel system was seriously shaken. Hence- 
forth, it was regarded as, at the very least, highly probable 
that the three vowels a, e, o all existed in the Aryan 
mother-tongue ; a view which, as has been said, scholars 
now regard as established. Of all the Aryan languages, the 
Hellenic group are now considered to preserve the primitive 
vowel system most faithfully. Greek is by far the richest 
in vowel sounds, and hence, instead of attributing, as was 



SUMMARY OF RESULTS 161 

formerly done, a poor vowel system to the mother-tongue, 
it is now the universal practice to credit it rather with the 
wealth and variety which is found in that group of 
dialects, than with the poverty and comparative monotony 
of Sanscrit. 

After this long discussion, which it is hoped may have 
afforded some illustration of the methods of comparison 
and reconstruction, we may return to a consideration of 
the various forms of the root ■ tooth ' in the different 
Aryan languages. 

We had established (see p. 154) the existence of two 
forms of the root in Gmc. — *tuny- 9 which is found in 
Gothic, and *tanp-, which is the ancestor of O.E. top and 
O.H.G. zand. The forms enumerated from other languages 
were — Scrt. dant ; Lith. dant-ls ; Lat. dent- ; and Gk. 
6-$6vt-. From what has just been said, it will be seen 
that we are now in a position to regard Gk. -hour- as 
primitive, and practically identical with the ancestral 
form. We are further j ustified in equating it with the Gmc. 
% tan\ (see p. 158), and with the Lith. dant-ls (pp. 157, 158). 

As regards the Scrt. form, the a might represent either 
an original o, in which case the Scrt. form may also be 
derived from the form *dont-, or it might be derived from 
an earlier *dent-. Since, however, the former is so well 
established for several branches of the Aryan family, it is 
on the whole, perhaps, more probable that the Scrt. form 
also goes back to this, in common with Lith., Gk., and 
Gmc. We may now pass on to discuss the Latin form 
dent- and the Gothic timp-us. What are the mutual 
relations of these, and what connection have they with 
the Aryan *dont- which we have established ? 

11 



162 METHODS OF COMPARISON AND RECONSTRUCTION 

Lat. dent- might, if taken by itself, be an original form, 
representing an Aryan *dent- ; just as Gk. irevd-epos, Lith. 
bend-ras, represent an original *bhendh-. This form occurs 
in Gmc. as bind-a.n, with Gmc. change from e to i before 
n + consonant. At this rate, original *dent- would produce 
in Gmc. *ten]>-, and thence *tinp-, but this form of this 
particular word is not found in any Gmc. tongue. 

There are other cases, however, when Lat. -en corresponds 
to Gmc. -un : for instance, Lat. cent-um, Goth, hund-, 6 100 '; 
to these forms there correspond i-zcarov in Gk., szimtas in 
Lith., and satdm in Scrt. Again, Lat. ment-, 'mind'; 
Goth, gdi-mund-s, ' remembrance,"' corresponds to Scrt. mati-, 
'thought/ In these cases we see that Lat. en, Gmc. un, 
correspond to forms in Scrt. and Gk. which have no nasal. 
In this case Lat. en cannot be derived from an original en, 
since, as we have just seen, that is preserved in Gk. and in 
Scrt. becomes an (irevOepos, Lat. of-fendix, ' tie,' ' band ' ; 
Scrt. bandhus, etc.) ; further, original en equals Gothic -in-, 
and not -un-. We may formulate our results so far thus : 

/Scrt. -an-\ fScrt. -an- \ 

The J Gk. -ov- I T ,„ _ The) Gk. -ev- I T , _ 

Seriesl Lat. -on- \ = U ^' '^ Seriesl Lat. -en. \ = Id ^ m ' 

LGmc. -an- ) I. Gmc. -en (in) J 



Scrt. a 
Gk. -a- 

Lat. -en 
Gmc. -un- 



The Series^-*. =Idg. ? 



That is to say that by the side of the forms -en- and -on- 
of roots with a nasal, we must assume that a third form 
existed — a form which, whatever it was, acquired various 
sounds in the separate development of each Aryan language. 
It is generally assumed that this third form was a weakened 



VOCALIC A r , M IN ARYAN 163 

form which possessed, originally, no definite vowel sound, 
but contained a syllabic nasal very similar, probably, to 
the second syllable of the English word ' button ' (batn). 
Comparative philologists usually write this hypothetical 
sound n, to distinguish it from the consonantal n, or m 
in the case of centum , etc. ; cf. Lith. szimtas, from Aryan 
*kmtdm. We have thus established a strong probability 
that Gothic tun\- and Latin dent- are both from an original 
form *d?it-, whereas the various other forms of this word, 
including the O.H.G. zand and O.E. top, are all derivable 
from a primitive *dont-. 

Although only two forms of this root have survived 
other similar roots preserve all three forms, thus : irevOepo?, 
bendras and bind-, from *bhendh- ; band and bandhus, from 
*bhondh; bund and of-fend-ix, from *bhndh-. This dif- 
ferentiation of an original vowel, which goes back to the 
mother-tongue, is known as Ablaut or Gradation. The 
supposed causes of this phenomenon will be treated later on. 

We have endeavoured in the above discussion to illustrate 
the method, and line of reasoning whereby the reconstructed 
forms of the mother-tongue are arrived at. 

The principles upon which our method is based are 
briefly stated by Brugmann {Techmer's Zeitschrift, Bd. I., 
pp. 254, 255). They may be summarized as follows : 

The probability that any given feature in a language is 
primitive increases with the number of languages in which 
it can be traced. 

The greater the geographical separation of those 
languages in which the same feature occurs, the greater 
the likelihood that it is inherited from the mother-tongue. 

Geographical separation limits the probability that the 

11—2 



164 METHODS OF COMPARISON AND RECONSTRUCTION 

occurrence of the same peculiarity in several languages 
is due to contact between them at a late period, or to 
borrowing. 

In cases where we find diversity of form in the derived 
languages, we assume diversity in the mother -tongue, 
unless we are able to show that this diversity is due to 
special conditions in individual languages — that is, to 
particular laws of sound change which we can state 
definitely. 

It is desirable to take as wide a survey as possible, and 
to check the results and conclusions at which we arrive, 
from several sides. 

In all reconstruction we must be guided by common- 
sense; we must bear in mind that we are dealing with 
sounds, and not with symbols, and must not overstep the 
limits of what is reasonable and probable in the sphere of 
actual change of sound. 



CHAPTER IX 

THE ARYAN OR INDO-GERMANIC MOTHER-TONGUE, AND 
THE DERIVED FAMILIES OF LANGUAGES 

Since even the most elementary books on the History of 
English contain at least some statement to the effect that 
there once existed a language, long since extinct, which 
is now known as the Aryan mother-tongue, from which 
various groups or families of languages sprang, together 
with an enumeration of these, a very brief account of the 
present views on this subject will suffice in this place. 
All that need be attempted here is a short and, if possible, 
a clear account of what is meant by the phrase mother- 
tongue, an enumeration of the principal groups of languages 
into which this was differentiated, the supposed relation- 
ship in which they stand to each other, with a more par- 
ticular account of one group — the Germanic, of which our 
own language is a member. 

Among the numerous general authorities on the ques- 
tions with which we are about to deal, there may be 
mentioned : Isaac Taylor, The Origin of the Aryans, 
1890 ; Sweet, History of Language, 1900 ; Schrader, 
Sprachvergleichung und Urgeschichte, 1890 ; and, above 
all, Brugmann, Grundriss der Vergleichenden Grammatik 
der Indogermanischen Sprachen [2nd ed.], Bd. I. (Laut- 

165 



166 THE ARYAN OR INDO-GERMANIC MOTHER-TONGUE 

lehre), 1897 ; and Kurze Vergleichende Grammatik der Indo- 
germanischen Sprachen, Bd. I. (Lautlehre), 1902, by the 
same author. The introductory chapters of the last two 
works deal with the classification and other general prob- 
lems connected with the Aryan languages. The larger 
book should be constantly consulted by advanced students 
of Comparative Philology, while even beginners might with 
advantage consult the smaller. Brugmann's works are 
standard text-books of the best kind ; they are masterpieces 
of method, and display the latest results of modern research, 
more especially in so far as it deals with such problems as 
are settled and no longer under discussion. Brugmann 
represents the solid, safe, conservative wing of the new 
science of language, of which, together with Osthoff, 
Paul, Sievers, and one or two more, he was the founder 
more than thirty years ago. Students of the history of 
the Science of Comparative Philology will recognise Scherer 
and Leskien as the intellectual fathers of the band of 
scholars of whom Osthoff and Brugmann are now the 
distinguished and venerated chiefs. 

The Conception of a Family of Languages. 

The resemblances and agreements in the forms of words, 
in vocabulary, and in inflections, which exist between such 
languages as Mod. Eng., Dutch, Danish, and German, 
are so striking that they cannot fail to impress even 
the least instructed student of two or more of the above 
languages. The farther back we go in the history of these 
tongues, and the earlier the forms of them which we 
compare, the closer becomes the resemblance. That there 
is an intimate connection between them is obvious. They 



MODERN GERMANIC LANGUAGES COMPARED 167 

are commonly classed together under the general name of 
the Germanic or Teutonic languages. We may take a few 
points of resemblance for consideration : (1) The modern 
Continental languages of the so-called Germanic group 
have, in a large number of cases, practically the same 
group of sounds associated with the same meaning. 
German kommen, 'come, 1 Dutch kommeiii), Swedish komma, 
German tag, ' day, 1 Dutch dag (dah), Danish dag (das}) ; 
German ein, zwei, drei, vier, fiinf, Dutch een, twee, drie, 
vier, vijf, Swedish en, twa, tre, fyra, fem=\, 52, 3, 4, 5; 
German mutter, Dutch moeder, Swedish moder, ' mother. 1 
And so on throughout the vocabulary, We find that these 
languages have in common thousands of words identical 
in meaning, and differing but little in pronunciation. 
The resemblances of Mod. Eng. to the other languages 
are in many cases not so close, but none the less unmistak- 
able. (2) We find that all of these languages agree in 
possessing a class of so-called weak verbs, which form their 
past tense by the addition of the suffix -de, -te, -ed, or -ede, 
to the root of the verb. Eng. hear, hear-d ; Swedish hora, 
hor-de ; Dutch liooren, hoor-de ; German horen, Kor-te, and 
so on. (3) These languages all possess groups of so- 
called strong verbs, which form their past tenses and past 
participles by series of changes in the vowels of the 
'root 1 : Eng. sing, sang, sung; Danish synge, sang, 
sunget; Dutch zingen, zong, ge-zongen; German slngen, 
sang, ge-sungen, etc. 

Now, agreement between languages which includes 
sounds, vocabulary, inflection, and such deep - rooted 
features as vowel change within the 'root 1 itself, cannot 
be mere coincidence. Neither, when we find such common 



168 THE ARYAN OR INDO-GERMANIC MOTHER-TONGUE 

features equally among widely-separated groups of speakers, 
such as the Germans, Swedes, Danes, and English, can the 
agreement be the result of wholesale borrowing ; for in this 
case it would naturally be asked, from whom have all 
these languages borrowed their characteristic features? 
Again, there is no reason for assuming that any one of 
these languages is the surviving ancestor of all the others. 
There remains only the possibility that English, Dutch, 
the Scandinavian languages, and German, are each and all 
the descendants of the same original language ; that they 
represent, in fact, the various forms into which a parent 
language, which no longer exists, has been differentiated, by 
virtue of such factors of isolation as those we have already 
discussed. Cf. p. 96, etc. This extinct form of speech, out 
of which we assume all these languages to have developed, 
along more or less different lines, we call Primitive Germanic. 
Parent Germanic, or simply Germanic. If we wished to 
compare the Germanic languages systematically, we should 
take the oldest forms of each which are preserved in writ- 
ing. The above examples are drawn from the modern 
languages, partly because these are, on the whole, more 
familiar and accessible to the general student, partly also 
to show how close the resemblance still is, even after all 
these centuries of separation. The oldest considerable body 
of ancient Germanic speech is the fourth-century translation 
of part of the Bible in Gothic, a language long extinct. 

By applying to the other ancient and modern languages 
or dialects of Europe and India tests similar to those 
briefly suggested above, similar results are obtained 
by scholars — namely, that at various points languages 
resolve themselves into groups of closely-related forms of 



CHIEF DIVISIONS OF ARYAN SPEECH 169 

speech. For each of these groups it appears necessary to 
assume a primitive ancestral form which no longer survives, 
and from which the various members of the group have 
been differentiated, in the same way as the Germanic 
languages sprang from parent Germanic. 

Thus we are able, from this point of view, to distinguish 
the following groups or Families of Speech : (1) Indian, 
of which the best-known ancient representative is Sanscrit, 
Iranian, which includes Old {and Mod.) Persian (West 
Iranian), and Zend, the dialect in which the A vesta — that 
is, the collection of the ancient sacred books of the Parsees 
— is written (East Iranian). This dialect is also known as 
Old Bactrian. Indian and Iranian dialects are usually 
grouped under the general head of Indo- Iranian. The 
earliest remains of Sanscrit are the hymns of the Rig- Veda, 
the language of which is approximately 4,000 years old, 
(2) Armenian, whose written records go back to the fifth 
century of our era. (3) Hellenic, or Greek dialects. 
(4) Albanian, now recognised as a member of an independent 
group. (5) Italic, which consists on the one hand of Latin, 
and on the other of the Oscan and Umbrian dialects. 
(6) Celtic, of which ancient Gaulish was a member, but 
which is best known from Old and Modern Irish and Scotch 
Gaelic on the one hand, and from Welsh in all its stages on 
the other. (7) Germanic, (8) Baltic- Slavonic. The last 
represents two nearly-related divisions of one original group. 
The Baltic division is known to us from Lettish (still 
spoken), Old Prussian (which died out in the seventeenth 
century), and by Lithuanian, spoken at the present day by 
something between one million and a half and two million 
persons in Russia and East Prussia. Lithuanian records 



170 THE ARYAN OR INDO-GERMANIC MOTHER-TONGUE 

go no further back than the tenth century. The Slavonic 
division consists of Russian, Bulgarian, Servian (Eastern), 
Bohemian or Chekh (tjch), Sorbian, and Polish (Western). 
The oldest form of Slavonic known is preserved in a trans- 
lation of the Bible and other religious writings from the 
ninth century. The dialect is known as Old Bulgarian, 
Old Church Slavonic, or simply Old Slavonic. 

The Aryan Family of Languages. 

A comparison of the common characteristics of each of 
the above families of languages with the others reveals the 
fact that there are many features shared by the whole 
group of families. These consist of fundamental elements 
of vocabulary, such as the numerals, the substantive verb, 
the pronouns, the names for the natural relationships. 
Further innumerable suffixes and formative elements appear, 
under varying forms, it is true, in all the above families. 
They all show the same principle of vowel gradation, or 
differentiation of vowels in the same root, and the main out- 
lines of sentence-structure and syntax are common to all. 

Here, again, the points of agreement are too numerous 
and too deeply seated to be fortuitous ; and the same 
inference is drawn with regard to the mutual relation? 
of the various families, as were drawn from facts of the 
same order, in connection with the relationship of the 
different languages which go to make up a given family. 

The assumption is made, that each of the now separate 
families of languages is sprung from a common parent 
language, the characteristics of which are preserved with 
varying degrees of fidelity in the derived languages. This 
common parent, the undifferentiated ancestral form of 



( CRADLE OF THE ARYANS ' 171 

speech, from which it is assumed that Indo- Iranian and 
Slavonic, and Greek and Latin, and Celtic and Germanic, have 
all been developed, is known as the Aryan Mother-Tongue, 
Primitive Aryan, or Indo-Germanic (Idg.), etc. This form 
of speech is, of course, nowhere spoken at the present 
time, nor has it ever been within the historic period. 
Authorities differ as to the length of time which has 
elapsed since the differentiation of the mother-tongue 
into dialects, but we may take it at something between 
ten and twelve thousand years. 

Where was Primitive Aryan spoken? 

The answer to this question, down to twenty-five years 
ago, was generally given in the words which the late 
Mr. Max Miiller used, in dealing with the subject, to 
the end of his life — ' somewhere in Asia. 1 With the 
exception, however, of Mr. Max Miiller, and the dis- 
tinguished Berlin Professor, Johann Schmidt, who died two 
or three years ago, probably no other responsible authority 
would have given such an answer — at least, not in a dog- 
matic manner — any time during the last quarter of a 
century. The question is discussed at length in the 
works mentioned above by Taylor, Schrader, and Sweet ; 
and among recent contributions to the subject, the reader 
may also refer to Schrader, Reallexikon der Indogerm. 
Altertumskunde, 1901, under heading, s Urheimat der Indo- 
germanen '/ Hirt, Indogerm. Forsch., i., p. 464 ; and 
Kretschmer, Einl. in die Gesch. d. griech. Spr., 1896. 
It is sufficient here to say that the universal view now 
held by scholars is that the ' Home of the undivided 
A ryans 1 was ' somewhere ' in Northern or Central Europe. 



172 THE ARYAN OR INDO-GERMANIC MOTHER-TONGUE 

In favour of the old view no serious argument ever has been, 
or ever could be, advanced, while all the evidence derived 
from archaeology, ethnology, and comparative philology, 
makes for the probability of the 6 European hypothesis? 

It is to be deplored that the writers of elementary text- 
books, or 4 cram -books," as they too often are, should still 
continue to copy, out of the works of an earlier generation, 
among other views now obsolete, this particular view 
of migration in successive waves from Asia, which often 
appears in modern books of the class alluded to, not as a 
tentative and possible account of what happened, but in 
the form of a categorical statement of undisputed fact. Un- 
fortunately, the theory has been discredited for more than 

thirty years. 

The Aryan Kace. 

It used formerly to be assumed that, since affinity 
of language had been proved between Indians, Slavs, 
Germans, Greeks, Italians, and Celts, it therefore also 
followed that ' the same blood flowed in the veins ' 
of all. At the present time probably no impartial 
observer would suggest such a view. The Aryan lan- 
guages are obviously spoken at the present day by men 
of very different physical types, and certainly of distinct 
race. Which of the existing races who speak Aryan 
languages represents the original race ? Perhaps none. 
On the other hand, it is maintained by many writers that 
the blonde, long-headed races of Northern Europe are 
nearest in physical type to the original Aryans. This 
question, however interesting in itself from many points 
of view, has but little bearing upon the problems of 
speech development with which we are here concerned. 



RACE AND LANGUAGE NOT COEXTENSIVE 173 

Whether the original speakers of Primitive Aryan were 
fair, like some Swedes and Russians ; or dark, like other 
Slavs, and like some of the speakers of Irish and Welsh 
at the present day ; or whether the mother-tongue was 
spoken both by fair and dark races, does not primarily 
concern us. We are content to know that there was 
a mother-tongue, which, in the course of time, spread 
over an immense geographical area, and was acquired 
by people of various racial types, who lost their own 
language in consequence; a fact which was probably of 
significance in determining the particular line of deviation 
from the original form, which Aryan speech followed in 
different areas (see ante, pp. 86 and 87). 

The Relative Primitiveness of the Divisions of Aryan 
Speech. 

As regards the preservation of inflections in their 
original fulness and variety, the general principle seems 
to be that those languages which longest preserved their 
old 'free ' accent of the mother- tongue, such as Sanscrit, 
Greek, Baltic-Slavonic, retained also for a long time a 
large proportion of the original suffixes and formative 
elements following the root ; those, on the other hand, 
which, like Latin, Celtic, and Germanic, developed a fixed 
and stereotyped accent at a comparatively early period, 
suffered a greater loss of inflections through the weakening 
of that part of words which was habitually unaccented. 

When we come to consider sound changes, however, no 
special claim to superior general fidelity to the original 
quality of the sounds, in other than final syllables, can be 
advanced in favour of any particular group of languages. 



174 THE ARYAN OR IXDO-GERMANIC MOTHER-TONGUE 

A sound is here subject to numerous changes, both 
Combinative and Isolative ; there it appears to enjoy 
immunity from change. Thus, for instance, ancient 
Greek has preserved the rich and varied vowel system 
of Primitive Aryan with remarkable fidelity, but the old 
consonantal system undergoes many striking changes in 
this language : s, except when final, becomes h, and 
is often lost ; the old back consonants with lip modifica- 
tion become, according to the conditions in which they 
appear, pure lip stops, or pure point-teeth stops ; the 
old voiced aspirates are all unvoiced ; if two aspirates 
of any kind follow each other in successive syllables of the 
same word, the first loses its aspiration. This last change 
is known as i Grassmaiis Law, and applies also to Sanscrit. 
All final consonants are lost, and t before i becomes s. 
Sanscrit has a poor and monotonous vowel system com- 
pared with Greek ; but the consonants, with the exception 
of the back series (back, back-outer, and back-lip-modified), 
are on the whole primitive. The outer varieties of back 
consonants become s ( $ ) and z respectively. Latin preserves 
in many cases the simple vowels intact, but they are liable 
to various combinative changes ; the diphthongs oi, eu, ou, 
are all levelled under u (though O. Lat. still has oe for the 
first) ; ai becomes ae (ae), and then e; ei becomes %. Latin 
preserves faithfully the lip-modified back consonants which 
Greek changes so completely ; but gets rid altogether of 
aspirated stops, which become under various conditions 
b, d, and f. Germanic preserves the old vowel system 
fairly well, but levels a under o, o under a, ei under 7, 
and ol under ai. All the stop consonants undergo change; 
the voiced stops are unvoiced, the voiceless stops are 



SCHLEICHER'S GENEALOGICAL CLASSIFICATION 175 

opened in the corresponding areas of articulation; the 
voiced aspirated stops also become the corresponding 
voiced open consonants. 

Such are a few of the principal characteristic changes which 
take place in four important families of the Aryan languages. 
Clearly the paths of development are very various. 

The Mutual Relations of the Chief Groups of Aryan 
Speech. 

The problem of how to group the Aryan languages, or 
families of languages, among themselves in such a way as 
to express the degree of relationship in which they stand 
to each other has occupied a number of eminent scholars. 
Schleicher (Deutsche Sprache 2 , p. 29) remarks, in some- 
what general terms, that when two or more members of 
a family of languages resemble each other closely, we 
naturally assume that they have not been so long sepa- 
rated from each other, as have other members of the same 
family which have already diverged from each other much 
farther. On the grounds of this principle, and guided by 
what he assumed to be decisive points of resemblance, 
Schleicher formulated his famous ' StammbaumJ or genea- 
logical tree, which expresses his conception of the inter- 
relations of the Idg. languages and the relative periods 
at which they differentiated from the mother-tongue and 
from each other (see Compendium 2 , 1866, p. 9). He con- 
ceives that Idg. first split into two branches ('durch 
ungleiche entwickelung ') — that is to say that the ancestral 
form of Slavonic and Germanic ( 4 Slavo-deutsch ') deviated 
from the remaining Ursprache. Then this remaining stem, 
which Schleicher calls fc AriograekoitaloceltischJ divided 



176 THE ARYAN OR INDO-GERMANIC MOTHER-TONGUE 

into Arian (that is, the Indian group) on the one hand, 
and a dialect from which was subsequently differentiated 
Greek, Italic, and Celtic, on the other. 

This Stammbaum theory was ruthlessly attacked by 
Johann Schmidt in 1872 (VerwandtschafbsverhaUnisse 
der Idg. Spr.), who altogether rejects the old explana- 
tion of the Idg. differentiation, and substitutes for it 
what is known as the ' Wellen-, or XJbergangstheorie'' 
— that is, the theory of gradual transition. Schmidt's 
investigation embraced at once all the various points 
of agreement which exist among all the groups of Idg. 
speech. As a result, he believed himself justified in 
giving the following account of the process of the break- 
ing up of the primitive speech. Indo- Germanic speech 
extended over a geographically unbroken area, in which 
arose from the earliest times, at different points, slight 
beginnings of incipient dialects in the shape of sound 
variation, which extended more or less far from their 
starting-place into the neighbouring districts. These 
differences grew up gradually among the speakers of what 
was once a homogeneous speech, and formed the proto- 
types of the subsequent families of languages. These 
dialects, however, Schmidt regarded as, in the first place, 
forming a continuous series, and shading one into the 
other. Then, here and there, the speech of one area 
gained in importance and strength, and absorbed those 
on either side which differed only slightly from it, thus 
destroying several links in the chain and leaving a gulf. 
This process happened in various centres, with the result 
that speech-islands were left, which differed widely from 
the surrounding forms. This was the origin of the great 



SCHMIDT'S WELLENTHEORIE 177 

families of Idg. speech. (For good account of Schmidt's 
theory cf. Schrader, Sprvgl., p. 89, etc. ; and Brugmann 
in Techmer's Ztschr., i., p. 226, etc.) 

This explanation entirely swept away Schleicher's original 
'speech unities' of ' Slavo-Germanic,' ' Graeko-Italo-Cetic,' 
etc. Schmidt showed that if the Slavonic languages could 
not be widely separated from the Germanic, on account of 
certain resemblances, too strong and too numerous to be 
due to coincidence, neither could the Slavonic languages 
be separated from the Indo-Iranian group. Greek, on the 
other hand, had undoubtedly close affinities to Sanscrit; 
but also other, equally strongly-marked characters in 
common with Latin. Thus the old division of the 
European and Asiatic branches, supposed to represent 
two main dialects of the Mother- Tongue, was done away 
with. The Gmc. family in Schmidt's scheme comes between 
Slavonic and Celtic, and the latter forms the connecting- 
link between Gmc. and Latin, thus completing the circle 
of affinities. This ingenious view of gradual transitions, 
and the subsequent dying out of intermediate varieties, 
was accepted by Schrader {he. cit.) and by Paul (in the 
Chapter ' Sprachspaltung,' Principien d. Sprgesch.). 

Modifications of the ' TJbergangstheorie.' 

In 1876 Leskien published his Deklmation im Slavisch- 
Litanischen unci Gerrnanischen, in the Introduction to which 
he discusses the question of Idg. classification at some 
length. On p. x of the Introduction he criticises Schmidt's 
statement of his case, and contrasts the new views with the 
Stammbaumtheorie. He points out that the ' Ubergangs- 
theorie'' by itself, involves the gradual spread of popu- 

12 



78 THE ARYAN OR INDO-GERMANIC MOTHER-TONGUE 

lation, by mere increase, over a slowly but ever increasing 
area. Schleicher's explanation involves migrations of 
considerable magnitude, a process which would accomplish 
the work of differentiation far quicker and more com- 
pletely. Leskien, however, does not by any means reject 
Schmidt's hypothesis, but proposes to modify it, and to 
combine it with the theory of genealogical development. 
It is possible for a large community, whose speech had 
already two slight dialectal varieties, to migrate from 
their original seat and settle down, still as one community, 
for a long time. In this case we assume three sections, as 
it were, of Schmidt's community — A, B, C, of which 
B's speech forms the connecting-link between A and B, 
and his different points of agreement with both. Thus 
in their original seat A and B have had, as it were, a 
common speech life, so have B and C, but not A and C. 
Then B and C move off together, and in their new home 
continue their common life. Any developments subse- 
quently undergone by A must be quite distinct from B ; 
and, on the other hand, B may develop on lines common 
to C, but in which obviously A can have no share. 
Leskien applies this argument to the relations of Indo- 
Iranian, Slav.-Lith., and Gmc, and considers the treatment 
of Aryan k' and of bh-m ; for this latter example I propose 
to substitute that of bh = Gk. c/>, Gmc. and Slav. b. 
Indo-Iranian shares with the Baltic-Slavic languages the 
change of one of the original k sounds to s ($), but 
Gmc. shows no such tendency ; on the other hand, 
Indo-Iranian (originally, at any rate) preserves the old 
aspirate bh, while both Gmc. and Slav, get rid of the 
aspiration. 



LESKIEN— BRUGMANN ON ARYAN AFFINITIES 179 

With this modification, then, Leskien's diagram (Einleit- 
ung, p. xi) may be reproduced as follows : 

A. B. C* 

Arian. Lith.-Slav. Gmc. 




k<s(S), s. bh<b. 

Recent Views. 
If we accept Hirt's view of the importance of foreign 
influence in differentiating language, (cf. p. 85) it would 
seem that some such modification of Schmidt's theory 
as that proposed by Leskien is necessary ; since, on the 
one hand, it accounts for the points of resemblance 
between different families of Idg. speech, and, on the 
other, allows also for the possibility of contact with 
speakers of non-Idg. languages, which may explain the 
great diversity which also exists. With regard, how- 
ever, to the features which several languages have in 
common, but which others do not possess, on the basis 
of which Schmidt postulated his system of continuous 
contact, Brugmann has taken up a very sceptical attitude. 
In an elaborate article in Techmer's Zeitschrift fur allge- 
meine Sprachwissenschqft, i., p. 226, etc. {Zur Frage nach 
den Verwandtschqftsverhaltnissen der Idg. Sp?\), after dis- 

* The similarity between Slav. -Li th. and Gmc. in their treatment 
of original bh consisted primarily in the loss of aspiration ; since 
although, later on, the individual Gmc. languages developed a voiced 
lip-stop (b) under certain conditions, there is reason to believe that 
this sound did not exist in Gmc. itself, and that bh became at first 
a lip-open-voice consonant. 

12—2 



180 THE ARYAN OR INDO-GERMANIC MOTHER-TONGUE 

cussing one after another, all the special points of develop- 
ment which two or more groups of Idg. speech have in 
common, he comes to the conclusion that the majority of 
them prove nothing in support of the assumption of the 
peculiarly close relationship claimed between those groups 
of languages in which they occur (he. cit., pp. 252-254). 
The only exception to this destructive conclusion ad- 
mitted by Brugmann is the close relationship of Celtic 
and Italic (p. 253). The same views are maintained in 
the most recent pronouncements of the same author (cf. 
Grundriss 2 , i., pp. 22-27 ; and Kurze-vergleichende Gr., 
pp. 3, 4, 18-22). The agreements which exist then, as 
they unquestionably do, between two or more speech 
groups, are not necessarily to be explained by assuming 
with Schleicher a common ' Slav o- Germanic "* language, 
or a common * Graeko-Iialic ' period. 

Brugmann suggests possibilities other than the genea- 
logical theory. The ancestors of two or more groups may 
have lived side by side, in a remote prehistoric period, before 
the breaking up of the mother-tongue, and may have 
developed the same tendencies in common. In such a case 
we should have to deal with dialectal variation originating 
within Aryan itself. It matters little whether, in their 
subsequent life-history, the languages remain in geographi- 
cal contact, or become widely separated ; for in the race- 
migrations of ages, original contiguity may be broken and 
joined again more than once. In grouping the languages 
of the Aryan stock, Brugmann arranges the families in 
the order suggested by their mutual resemblances ; this is 
the most practical method of arrangement so long as it 
is remembered that nothing beyond resemblance is implied 



ARYAN CONSONANTS 



181 



thereby, and that the question of how to interpret the 
resemblance is left open. It is possible that examples of 
original dialectal character are afforded by the treatment 
of k (forward k), which becomes s or (J) in Indo -Iranian 
and in Baltic-Slavonic, but which in all the other families 
is levelled under the full-back stop. 

The Sounds of the Mother-Tongue. 
By applying methods similar to those illustrated in the 
last chapter, the following sounds are now believed to 
have existed in Primitive Aryan : 

Consonants. 





Back. 


Back-lip- 
Modified. 


Back-outer. 


Front. 


Open . . . 
Stop ... 
Nasal... 
Divided 


k, kh, g, gh 
9 


k w g w 


k, £h, g, gh 


J 





Blade. 


Point- teeth. 


Lip. 


Lip-back- 
Modified. 


Open . . . 


s, z 


— 


— 


w 


Stop ... 


— 


t, th, d, dh 


p, ph, b, bh 


— 


Nasal . . . 


— 


n 


m 


— 


Divided 


— 


1 


— 


— 


Trill ... 


— 


r 


— 


— 



182 THE ARYAN OR INDO-GERMANIC MOTHER-TONGUE 

Vowels. 





Unrounded. 


Rounded. 


Front. 


Back. 


Flat. 


Back. 


High ... 

Mid 

Low 


1 
e 


a 


9 


u 
6 

3 (?) 



Also syllabic 1, r, n, m ; and the diphthongs : ei, eu, ai, 
au, 6i, 6u. 

The Relations of Vowels to each other in Aryan— -Ablaut, 
or Vowel Gradation. 

Cf. Brugmann; Grundr. 2 i., p. 482, etc., and Vgh Gr. 
p. 138, etc. ; Hirt d. Idg. Ablaut, 1900, and Griech. Gr., 
ch. ix. and x. ; Str either g Urgerm. Gr., p. 36, etc. ; Noreen 
Urgerm. Lautlehre, p. 37, etc. ; and the references given 
in these works. 

In all Idg. languages, certain vowel changes occur within 
groups of etymologically related words, both in ' roots ' 
and in suffixes — e.g. : in Gk.,Xeya), 'I speak 1 ; Xoyos, ' word 1 ; 
cpdfxi, 6 1 speak ' (Doric), (J)covt], 4 voice '; iraTiqp, ' father, 1 
Ace. iraTepa; fevyco, 'I fly, 1 Aorist efyvyov, etc. In Latin, 
tego, ' cover, 1 perf. texi ; moneo> literally ' cause to re- 
member, 1 me-min-i, = *men- ; dare, 6 give '; donum, 6 gift '; 
ddtus, i given, 1 etc. In Gmc, vowel changes of this nature 
take place regularly in the strong verbs — e.g. : Gothic, 
giban, ' give, 1 pret. sing, gaf, pret. pi. gebum, kiusan, 
6 choose, 1 pret. sing, kaus, pret. pi. kusum, etc. ; also in 



GRADATION A PHONOLOGICAL PROBLEM 183 

other etymologically related words : O.E., dceg, ' day,' 
dogor ; Goth., hiripan, 'catch,' handus, ' hand ' (literally, 
4 that which seizes '), etc. 

The above changes cannot be explained by sound laws 
peculiar to the particular languages in which they occur ; 
their explanation must be sought in the common mother- 
tongue. The phenomena of these primitive vowel alterna- 
tions are all included under the name Ablaut , invented by 
Grimm, although they are of various nature, and the causes 
which produced them must have been of several kinds ; 
according to the present view however, it is probable that 
they were in all cases associated with primitive conditions of 
accentuation. Although the differentiation of vowels by 
Ablaut was made use of in Idg. to express differences of 
meaning, these latter are only indirectly related to the 
vowel changes. If a vowel originally recurred in a parti- 
cular form in a particular grammatical category — as, for 
instance, in the Germanic strong verbs — this was because the 
phonetic conditions were present upon which that form of 
the vowel depended. The origin of Ablaut distinctions, 
then, is a phonological problem. Even in Idg. itself there 
must have been cases like that of the suffix in Gk. prj-rrfp, 
compared with prj-rtop, in which the variation of the vowel 
performed no semasiological function at all. 

The full explanation of this difficult question will prob- 
ably always remain hidden, since we are here dealing 
with a portion of the earliest history of the Ursprache 
itself. 

No single sound law produced all the phenomena with 
which the historical period of Idg. speech presents us in 
this respect, but a considerable number of laws, which 



184 THE ARYAN OR INDO-GERMANIC MOTHER-TONGUE 

were active at different periods, possibly widely separated 
in time. 

The Ablaut as we know it in the earliest historic period is 
the result of the stratifications of the speech of different ages. 

We have to distinguish two fundamentally distinct kinds 
of Ablaut : a Quantitative and a Qualitative. The latter 
kind consists in the interchange, within cognate ' roots ' and 
suffixes, of vowels of different Quality — e.g., £-d (cf. prjrrjp- 
prjTcop). The causes of this Ablaut are the most obscure. 

Quantitative Ablaut, on the other hand, consists in the 
shortening or lengthening of vowels. This kind of Ablaut 
is associated mainly with the position of the accent in 
Primitive Aryan. By accent here may in all probability 
be understood stress. 

It should be remembered that Idg. consisted, not of 
6 Roots,"* but of words. 6 Roots," 1 which are mere grammatical 
abstractions, had no existence in Idg. any more than in 
Modern English. Since, however, it is necessary to make 
some kind of abstraction in dealing with groups of cognate 
words, it is better to call these ' Basest Aryan words 
were monosyllabic and polysyllabic, and so we speak also 
of monosyllabic and polysyllabic Bases. 

The accent in Aryan was 'free ' — that is, the chief accent 
might rest, theoretically, upon any syllable in a word. In 
a word of several syllables only one syllable can have full 
stress ; the other syllables have varying degrees of stress. 
It is enough to distinguish, from this point of view, Strong, 
Medium, and Weak syllables, all of these being, however, 
relative terms — Strong implying the chief stress in any given 
word, Weak implying the least stress, or what is also called 
absence of stress {cf. pp. 45 and 46 above). 



ALTERATIONS OF VOWEL QUANTITY 185 

Now, at a certain period in primitive Idg. vowels were 
very sensitive to the influence of stress. According to the 
degree of strength with which any syllable was uttered, so 
its original vowel or diphthong was either preserved in its 
full volume, or was zveakened or 6 reduced.'' If the syllable 
was altogether unstressed, it might lose its vowel com- 
pletely. The only vowels which, after the period of this 
weakening in unaccented syllables, could stand in strong 
syllables were d, e, 6, and diphthongal combinations of 
these with i, u. r, /, m, n. 

We distinguish, then, three main 6 grades ' or ' stufen ' 
of vowels, one of which every syllable of an Aryan word 
must necessarily contain : the Full grade in strong syllables, 
the Reduced grade in Medium syllables, and the ' Vanish- 
ing'' grade in Weak syllables. 



The ' Dehnstufe ' or Lengthened Grade. 

So far we have only considered the weakening or total 
disappearance of a vowel ; there remains to be dealt with 
the further case in which an original short vowel is 
lengthened. To this grade German writers give the name 
of Dehnstufe or ' stretch grade? 

It does not follow that all long vowels in Idg. are of 
this origin ; there are original long vowels, which were 
long before the beginning of the Ablaut processes. But 
in word series (Ablautsreihen) in which we find long vowels 
side by side with short vowels, the short vowels occurring, 
not in the Reduced grades, but in Fidl grades, showing 
that they are original, then, in these cases, we may assume 
that we are in the presence of the ' Stretch ' grade. 



186 THE ARYAN OR INDO-GERMANIC MOTHER-TONGUE 

Compare, for instance, Latin veho with perf. vexi (Idg. 
e-e) ; O.E. s&t, pret. sing, of sittan ( = Idg. *sod), with sot, 
'soot" — literally, 'that which settles down 1 (= Idg. *sod). 
The explanation of this lengthening has been formulated by 
Streitberg (I. F., iii. 305, etc.), and has gained fairly general 
acceptance. Briefly stated, his law runs : ' The short vowel 
of an accented (Strong) syllable is lengthened in Idg. 
when a following syllable is lost (cf. also Brugmann, 
Vgl Gr., p. 38, and Hirt, Idg. Ablaut, p. 22, etc.). This, 
of course, is merely the general explanation of the origin 
of the lengthening in Idg. itself; it does not follow that 
we are always able to trace the loss of a syllable in all cases 
where the Dehnstiife occurs in the derived languages. 

The Vowels of the Weakened Grades. 

The fate of the Aryan full vowels when weakened under 
the conditions described above (p. 185) is clearly a matter 
of hypothesis. It is, however, our business to endeavour 
to form some idea of what happened by a comparison of all 
the derived languages. The reduced forms of a, e, o appear 
in Indo-Iranian as i, and in all the other families of Aryan 
speech as a. It is therefore assumed that the original 
sound was an 4 obscure 1 vowel, which is written d in philo- 
logical works. 

Note. — Thus Brugmann, Grundriss, 2 loc. cit., and Vgl. 
Gr., § 127 ; Hirt, on the other hand (Idg. Ablaut, p. 5, 
etc.) assumes that these vowels did not lose their original 
quality in Idg. when reduced, but were merely unvoiced, 
and, instead of d, writes e a o. Hirfs reason for so doing 
is that in Greek Oeros compared with tlOv/jll, araro^ 
compared with tard/M, Soros compared with SlScoju, the 



REDUCTION OF LONG AND SHORT VOWELS 187 

original quality of e, a, o reappears. He argues that the 
whispered vowel has emerged in Greek with mere shorten- 
ing, while the other languages have lost the original quality 
of e and o, and levelled them under a. This view is also 
shared by Fick, Bechtel, Wackernagel, and Collitz (see 
references in Hirt). Brugmann, however, and probably 
most other scholars, explain the above Greek forms as new 
formations from Ocltos^ etc. 

The reduction of short a, £, o cannot be proved, from 
any historical indications, to have altered these vowels at 
all, since the original vowels reappear intact in positions 
where, theoretically speaking, reduction must have taken 
place — that is, in weak syllables. Brugmann writes these 
theoretical reduced vowels a> e> 0> but does not discuss 
their nature. Hirt, again, assumes that these were voiceless 
(' tonlose ') vowels. In the derived languages this grade is 
indistinguishable from the full grade short vowels. 

Note. — The modification by accent of the long and short 
vowels cannot have been synchronous. We may accept 
Hirt's hypothesis concerning the reduction of the short 
vowels, since it appears to jump with the facts. But the 
long vowels certainly appear to have lost their character- 
istic quality altogether. If this is so, then the two pro- 
cesses cannot have taken place at the same time, since it 
is scarcely conceivable that a short vowel, when unaccented, 
should retain its quality more completely than a long, at 
a period when all vowels in weak syllables were affected. 
We may, perhaps, assume an early period of vowel reduction 
which only affected short vowels, which were either unvoiced 
or whispered in weak syllables, but which left long vowels 



188 THE ARYAN OR INDO-GERMANIC MOTHER-TONGUE 



unaltered. Then in a subsequent period long vowels were 
reduced under the same conditions, only more completely 
than the short vowels in the former period, since they 
lost their quality and became an indeterminate sound (d). 
We must suppose that in this period the whispered or 
voiceless a, e 9 o which had been produced in the former age 
of reduction remained without further alteration. At a 
later period the latter class were again fully voiced, thus 
being levelled under the unreduced a, e, o, while d remained 
until the breaking up of Aryan into dialects, and was then 
levelled under a in all groups except Indo- Iranian, where 
it became i. 

Qualitative Ablaut. — Under certain conditions, which 
are by no means clear as yet, primitive e in Full Grade 
syllables became o, and e in the same grade became o. 
Therefore, when we have a base in which primitive e or e 
occur, we may also expect to find cognate forms with 
o or o. This o underwent lengthening in the Dehnstufe. 

We may summarize the foregoing statement as follows 





D. 


D°. 


F. 


F°. 


R. 


V. 


e Series . . . 


e 





e 





e 


— 


o „ ... 





— 





— 





~ 


a „ ... 


a 





a 





a 




e „ ... 


— 


— 


e 


o 


a 


— 


o „ ... 


— 


— 


o 


— 


9 


— 


a „ ... 


— 





a 


o 


9 


— 



Note. — D. = Dehnstufe ; D.° = Delinstufe in which o 
from e occurs; F.=Full Grade ; F.° that in which o from 
e occurs ; R. = Reduced Grade ; V. = Vanishing Grade. 



TREATMENT OF DIPHTHONGS IN WEAK SYLLABLES 189 

Diphthongal Combinations in Ablaut. 

Each and all the above vowels of the F. Grade occurred 
in Aryan in combination with i, u, and the vocalic con- 
sonants /, m, n, r. 

The long diphthongs were levelled under the original 
shorts, or were monophthongized in all Idg. languages 
except Scrt., in which there are still traces of the long 
(cf. Brugmann, Grundr., 2 i., p. 203, etc.). 

For the -i- and -u- long diphthongs we assume a R. grade 
di, du, which appear to have been levelled already in Idg. 
under the F. Grade before vowels. In the V. Grade the 
first element entirely disappears, leaving j, u. In all grades 
i and u are vowels before consonants, but become con- 
sonants before following vowels. 

The combinations of 7, m, etc., are treated in the same 
manner : F. el, ol ; R. al ; V. 1, etc. The ' liquids ' and 
nasals in the V. Grade are consonantal before vowels, other- 
wise they are syllabic. The Reduced grades a'% 9ii, of long 
diphthongs appear as 7, u before consonants; as ai, au 
before vowels. 

The reduced grades of the short diphthongs ei, a% oi 
are either levelled under the V. grade, or, when they 
receive a secondary accent are lengthened to % u. 

Although theoretically, each vowel in every word might, 
under the necessary conditions, appear in every grade, 
it does not follow that, in the derived languages, all 
the original possible forms of a word, 'root? or suffix 
survive ; they are very rarely all found in any one 
language, and some have apparently disappeared from 
all languages. 



100 THE ARYAN OR INDO-GERMANIC MOTHER-TONGUE 



Examples of Aryan Ablaut. 
Idg. e Series. 



F. 


D. 


V. 


e II o 


e| 


5 


Ar. *sed-, 'sit': 
Lat. sedere 
Gk. e^ofxat 
0. SI. sedeti 
O.E. sittan 
>-*set-jan 

Ar. *bher- : 
Lat. fero 
Gk. (pepw 
Goth, bairan 
O.E. beran 

Ar. *ped : 
Gk. ire^a 
Lat. pedera 

Ar. *-ter : 
Lat. pater 
O.E. feeder 


Lat. sodalis 
Goth, sat 

Lat. for-s, 

for -tuna 
Gk. (popvi 
Goth, bar 
O.E. bser 

Lith. padas 
Gk. irodos 
Lat. ap- 

pod-ix 

Lat. auc-tor 
Goth,bro-]?ai 


Lat. sed-imus 
Goth, setum 
O.E. sseton 

Goth, berum 
O.E. bieron 

Lat. pes 
>-*peds 

Gk. warr/p 
Gk. (ppd-Trjp 


O.E. sot 

Gk. (pup 
Lat. fur 

Gk. 7TWS 

(Doric) 
Goth, fotus 

Gk. cppa-TOjp 


Idg. -sd- : 
Lat. nidus 
=-*nisrZos 
O.E. nest 

Idg. *bhr- : 
Gk. 5<.-(ppos 
(chariot- 
board for 
two) 

Idg. bhr : 
Goth.°baur 
O.E. boren 
(= Gmc. 
*bur-) 

Idg. pd- : 
Gk. 67rt- 

pS-ac- 
= *e-pi-pd- 

Lat. pa-^r-is 
Gk. 0pa-rp-d 
Goth. bro-]?r- 
ahans 



The symbol < in this book means c becomes/ or ' develops into '; 
> means ' derived from.' 



ABLAUT SERIES ILLUSTRATED 



191 



Idg. o Series. 



F. 


D. 


V. 


0. 


0. 






Ar. *<?A; W - : 








Gk. oaae = *o/ae ; 


Gk. 07r-&)7r-a ; 


wyjr 


— 


o^frofiat 








Lat. oculus 








Ar. *od- : 








Gk. dSay)] 


Gk. oSooSrj 




— 


Lat. odor 









Idg. a Series. 



F. 


D. 


V. 


a. 


a. 




Ar. *ak- : 






Scrt. ajras 


Gk. rjx e (v from a) 


Scrt. pari-/man 


Gk. «/ypo? 


Lat. examen 




Gk. ayco, dfcrcop 


(>-ag-men) 




Lat. ago, actor 


Lat. amb-ages 




Goth, agrs 


0. Ir. ag 




O.E. aecer 






Ar. *nase : 






O.H.G. nasa 


Lat. nares 


— 


Scrt. (Instr.) nasa 


Lat. nasus 





Note. — According to Hirt, the forms aypos, ajras, ager, 
akrs, also nasa and nas£, are R. grade (cf. Idg. Abl., §§ 761- 
764) ; but the reduced grade of the e, a y o series are in- 
distinguishable from the F. grade in the derived languages. 



192 THE ARYAN OR INDO-GERMANIC MOTHER-TONGUE 

Idg. e Series. 



F. 


R. 


V. 


e. 


8. 




Ar. *«?e, * sow ' : 






Lat. sevi 


Lat. satus 


Scrt. s-tri, 


Lat. semen 




'wife' 


Goth. mana-se]?s 






Ar. *dhe, ' place ' : 






Scrt. dadhami 


Scrt. hitas 


Scrt. da-dh- 


Gk. Ti0r)fM 


(h from dh) 


mas 


Lat. feci 


Gk. TiOefJiev 




Goth, gade^s 


Lat. facio 




O.E. dsed 






Ar. *led, ' let, 1 ' grow 






tired': 






Gk. XySelu 


Lat. lassus 


— 


Goth, letan 


>*lad-to- 




O.E. lsetan 


Goth. lats 





Idg. o Series. 



F. 


R. 


V. 


0. 


9. 




Ar. *<io-, 'give': 






Scrt. dadati 


Scrt. a-ditas 


deva-t-tas 


Gk. &L$(i)fLL 


Scrt. ditis 


(-t- from -d-) 


Gk. Scoaco 


Gk. 8l8ofjL€i> 


Lat. de-d-i 


Lat. donum 


Lat. datus 




Lat. donare 


Lat. datio 




Ar. *bhog-, 'roast 1 : 






Gk. (f>Go<y(D 


Gk. (frayeiv 


— 


O.E. boc (pret.,of 


O.E. bac-an 




bacan) 


O.E. bascere 





POLYSYLLABIC BASES 

Idg. a Series. 



193 



F. 


R. 


V. 


a. 


9. 




Ar. *sthd-, 6 stand ' : 






Gk. l(TT7}/JLl 


Scrt. sthit^s 


Scrt. go-sth-a 


Gk. <TTr)(T(jd 


Gk. t-ara-fjuev 


(' standing - 


(rj from a) 


Gk. aTCLTOS 


place for 


Lat. stare 


Lat. status 


cows ') 


Lat. stamen 


Lat. statim 


Goth, awistr 


Goth, stols 


Goth, staps 


( = *oui-st- 
tro) ' sheep- 
fold 1 
O.H.G. ewist 


Ar. *bhd, 6 speak ' : 




>*awist 


Gk. (f)7]fJLL (*(f)d/JLL) 


Gk. cfrafiev 


— 


Lat. fari 






Lat. fama 







For an account and full examples of the Ablaut in 
original polysyllabic bases, see Brugmann and Hirt, he. cit., 
especially the latter. In dealing with these bases, it is 
necessary to distinguish the vowel gradation in each 
syllable. A few examples may be given here (the numbers 
refer to syllables) : 

Aryan *genewo, ' knee. 1 

Scrt. janu, Gk. yovv, have F. in 1st, R. in 2nd ; Goth, 
kniu ( = *gnewo-), O.E., cned, have V. in 1st, F. in 2nd; 
Scrt. abhi-jnu, 'down to the knee,' Gk. <yvv%, irpoyyv^ 
Goth, knussjan, have V. in 1st, R. in 2nd.; while D. grade 
appears in Gk. ywvid, in 1st. 

13 



194 THE ARYAN OR INDO-GERMANIC MOTHER-TONGUE 

Aryan *gene, *gone, *geno 9 *gond, ' know.' 

Goth, kann has F. (Idg. *gon-) ; Lith. zinoti, Goth, 
kunnaida, have R. or V. in 1st (Idg. *gn-) and F. in 2nd ; 
Scrt. a-jiia-sam, jiia-tas, Gk. yt-yvcio-aKco^ Lat. nosco, O.E. 
cnawan, have V. in 1st (Idg. gn-) and F. in 2nd ; O.H.G. 
kunst (Idg. *gn-t-to) has R. in 1st and V. in 2nd. 

Aryan *pele, 'fill/ 

Scrt. parinas (r from 1) has F. in 1st and 2nd; Scrt. 
prnati, Lat. plenus, etc., Gk. TrX^-pe?, etc., have V. in 1st, 
F. in 2nd ; Scrt. purnas, Lith. pilnas, Goth, fulls, have 
R. in 1st, V. in 2nd. 

Aryan *pero, *perem, 'forward. 1 

Gk. Trpcoi, O.H.G. vruo ( = *fro), have V. in 1st, F. in 
2nd; Lith. pirmas, O.E. forma ( = *furma ^> Idg. 
*prmo-), have R. in 1st, F. in 2nd (or 3rd if we assume 
pro-Idg. *peremo); Goth, fruma, O.E. from ( = *pnno), 
have R. in 1st, V. in 2nd (*peremo), and F. in 3rd. 

The phenomena of Ablaut are to be regarded as a series 
of Combinative Changes which took place in the mother- 
tongue. They are among the most characteristic features 
of Aryan speech. If primitive Aryan be a dialect of a still 
older language, then we may consider that its characteristic 
independent life as Aryan begins with the first Ablaut 
changes. 



CHAPTER X 
THE GERMANIC FAMILY 

This Family, which is of special importance to students of 
English, falls into three divisions — the North Germanic 
or Scandinavian; the East Germanic, represented by 
Gothic and the language of the Vandals, both long ex- 
tinct, and the latter only preserved in proper names ; 
West Germanic, the earliest forms of which are Old 
Saxon, the Old English dialects, Old Frisian, all of 
which belong to the so-called Loiv German group, and 
Old High German, the name given to a group of West 
Germanic dialects in which the voiceless stops of Ger- 
manic, preserved in all other dialects and languages 
of this family, underwent a change to open consonants 
or affricated sounds respectively, during the sixth and 
seventh centuries. Other consonants also underwent 
change, but less universally than Gmc. p, t, k, though even 
in the case of k the opening or affrication was not carried 
out with perfect uniformity, in all positions, in every H.G. 
dialect. Within the West Germanic branch itself, it is 
now usual to assume an Anglo- Frisian group, which subse- 
quently differentiated into Old Frisian and Old English. 
(For statement and arguments in favour of this view, see 
especially Siebs, Zur Gesch. d. engl-friesisch. Spr., 1889, and 
Bremer, Ethnographie der germ. Stanwne 2 , 1900, p. 108, etc. 

195 13—2 



196 THE GERMANIC FAMILY 

The latter is a reprint from Paul's Grwidr. 2 , in which see 
p. 842, etc.) This assumption of an original Anglo- 
Frisian unity is based upon certain very close agreements 
in vocabulary, and in the treatment of the vowel sounds, 
which exist between O.E. and O. Fris. At the same time, 
the Anglo-Frisian unity, although a very plausible hypo- 
thesis, is contested by some scholars {e.g., Morsbach, Beibl. 
zur A?iglia, vii., and Wyld, Engl. Studien, xxviii., pp. 393, 
394, Otia Merseiana, iv.,pp. 75, 76), and a further critical 
examination of the points of agreement between the two 
languages is desirable in order to determine how far these 
are really due to a common, and how far to an indepen- 
dent, development. 

[On the classification of the Germanic languages, their 
mutual relations and characteristics, the best authorities 
are : Kluge, Vorgeschiclite der germanischen Sprachen in 
Paul's Grundriss 2 ; Streitberg, Ur-germanische Grammatik, 
pp. 9-18 (the latter book is perhaps the best introduc- 
tion to the study of Germanic Philology which exists); 
Einleitendes in Dieter's Laid- und Formenlehre d. altger- 
manischen DialeMe, vol. i., 1898. The above works con- 
tain full references to the special grammars of the several 
languages, and to authorities on the various questions of 
general and special bearing connected with Germanic 

Philology.] 

Primitive Germanic. 

By this term is meant, as already indicated, that un- 
differentiated form of speech, distinguished from Primitive 
Aryan by possessing the characteristic Germanic features, 
and containing the germ of those peculiarities which subse- 
quently appear in those languages, already enumerated, 



FORMS OF GERMANIC— HOW ARRIVED AT 197 

which spring from this source. The sources of our know- 
ledge of Parent Germanic are of a twofold character : 
Direct and Indirect. 

The direct sources of knowledge are scanty, and consist 

(1) of Gmc. words mostly occurring in proper names 
mentioned in the works of Greek and Latin writers from 
the time of Caesar; and (2) very early loan-words from 
Gmc. still preserved in Finnish, which in many cases 
retain down to the present day the original full Gmc. 
form. The indirect sources are (1) the earliest Runic 
inscriptions in Primitive Norse, some of which are as old 
as the first century of our era, and the language of which 
is therefore but a stage removed from Primitive Gmc. ; and 

(2) the reconstructions which are made according to 
the strict methods of modern Comparative Philology (cf. 
Chapter VIII.) . 

Characteristics of Germanic. 

At what point of the original Aryan dialectal differen- 
tiation does Germanic come into existence ? Can we say 
that when a certain group of features have developed 
within a speech area this ceases to be Primitive Aryan 
any longer, but has now an independent existence with 
the definitely-marked features of the ancestor of the 
Germanic languages ? 

Probably the most characteristic and typical Germanic 
characteristics are the consonantal changes, the so-called 
sound-shifting processes, known to the readers of text-books 
as Grimm's Law. We might perhaps say that from the 
moment that original t, p, k, have become open consonants, 
here is the beginning of Gmc. Since none of the readers 
(and few of the writers) of the ordinary small primer 



198 THE GERMANIC FAMILY 

which discourses glibly of GrimrrCs Law have any idea 
where that Law is to be found in the works of Grimm, 
nor how he states it, it may be of interest to mention that 
in vol. i. of the Deutsche Grammatik, p. 584, etc. (I quote 
from the edition of 1822), the immortal grammarian dis- 
cusses, with numerous examples, the relations of the con- 
sonantal sounds of Sanscrit, Greek, and Latin, etc., with 
those of Gothic and Old High German. Grimm also 
notes that in certain Gothic words ' exceptions ' occur to 
the usual correspondences of Gk., Lat., Scrt. p, t, k, to 
Gothic f, J?, etc. These exceptions were to be explained 
some fifty years later by Verner. 

The statement of these facts of consonantal change 
which would be accepted at the present day is very dif- 
ferent from Grimm's statement, as the reader may see by 
comparing the treatment of the subject by Streitberg, for 
example, with the above passages in Grimm's Grammar. 

The Consonantal Shiftings in Germanic. 

I. Aryan p, t, k were aspirated to ph, th, Jch, being thus 
levelled under the original voiceless aspirated stops. 

II. All the voiceless aspirated stops, both old and new, 
were opened, and became the corresponding voiceless open 
consonants. 

Examples : 

'ph (original) ; O. Sax. and O.H.G. Mian, 'fall'; 

Gk. crcf)aWcD. 
ph (from earlier p) ; Goth. -fa\s, 6 lord,' c master ' ; 
Scrt. pciti-, 'master'; Gk. 77-00-4? (from *potis), 
6 husband ' ; Lat. hos-pit-is (gen.), 6 guest- 
friend.' 



Aryan < 



CONSONANTAL CHANGES— GRIMM— VERNER 199 



Aryan 



Aryan 



'th (original); Goth, ska\jan, 'to harm'; Gk. 

a-cr/aiOrfsi ' blameless.' 
th (from earlier t) ; Goth, murips ; O.E. mfl]>, 

4 mouth'; Lat. mentum, ' chin.' 

lh (original) ; ? 

Jch (from earlier Jc); Goth, hairto* 'heart'; O.E. 
heorte ; Gk. /capSia; Lat. cord-is (gen.). 



These changes invariably take place initially ; medially , 
however, when the accent in Aryan fell on any other 
syllable than that immediately preceding them, the Gmc. 
consonants /, p, h (back-open cons.) were voiced to t 
(lip-open-voice), $ (point-teeth-open- voice), and 5 (written 
gin most old Germanic languages, but = back-open-voice). 
These were the ' exceptions ' to his law which puzzled 
Grimm, but which were explained as above by Verner 
{Kuhiis Zeitschrift, xxiii., pp. 97-130) in 1877. Sanscrit 
and Greek often preserve the original accent, so that where 
we find b, d, g, in Germanic, instead of the voiceless sounds, 
the Greek forms often show the accent on some other syllable 
than that immediately preceding the consonant. This habit 
of voicing in the Germanic languages, under the above 
conditions, proves that parent Germanic retained the 
original system of ' free ' accent, since the same root shows 
voiceless or voiced forms according to the shifting position 
of the accent. 

Examples of Verner 's Law : 

Aryan p (or ph) = Gmc. § (written b) ; Goth, and 
O. Sax. sibun, 6 7 '; Scrt. saptd ; Gk. eirrd. 



200 THE GERMANIC FAMILY 

Aryan t (th) = Gmc. d (written d); Goth, -Fadar, 'father'; 
O.Fj. feeder ; Scrt. pitdr ; Gk. Trarijp. 

Aryan & = Gmc. 3 (written g) ; O.E. sweger, 'mother- 
in-law '; Scrt. svasru ; Gk. iftvpa, from *aFefcvpa. 

Note. — The old Germanic languages do not distinguish 
b, d, g, according to whether they represent open conso- 
nants or stops. Originally these consonants were all open 
in Gmc. It is usual for philologists, for purposes of 
accuracy, to write these original open consonants d, ct, 5. 
The popular expression that ' h became g by Verner's law 
is most mischievous, and gives a false impression. We are 
dealing with changes which took place hundreds of years 
before writing was known to the Gmc. peoples — with pure 
sound changes. The facts are simply and accurately stated 
by saying that the lip, point-teeth, and back voiceless open 
consonants were voiced. That is the process which took 
place under the conditions described by Verner. 

The Third Germanic Consonant Shifting. 

The Aryan aspirated voiced stops, bh 9 dh, gh, are 
opened in Gmc. to the corresponding voiced open con- 
sonants. 

The d, d, % thus produced are indistinguishable from 
the same sounds which arose according to the conditions 
of Vemer's Law ; they share in each language the sub- 
sequent development of these, and are also written 5, d, g 
in the old languages. 

These voiced aspirates survive, as such, only in Sanscrit ; 
in Gk. they remain as aspirates (apart from certain com- 
binative changes), but are unvoiced, and are written <£, 0, x- 



COMPLETION OF THE SHIFTINGS 201 

Examples : 

Aryan dh 9 Gmc. 3 : Goth. ga-de-p-s, * deed ' ; O.E. dsed ; 
Scrt. da-dAa-mi, 'set, place 1 ; Gk. rl-Ow-fAi. 

Aryan bh, Gmc. t : Goth. bro]>ar, 'brother 1 ; O.E. 
5ro]?or ; Scrt. Mra-tar ; Gk. (ftpdrcop. 

Aryan gh, Gmc. 3 : Goth, stei^an, 'climb, ascend 1 ; 
O.E. sti^an ; Scrt. sti^/mute ; Gk. crre/z^o). 

The Fourth and Last Consonantal Shifting in Germanic. 

The Aryan voiced stops b, d, g, were unvoiced in Gmc. 
to the corresponding breath-stops p, t, k. 

There is an indication of the approximate date of these 
processes of shifting in place-names. The mountain name 
Finne was borrowed by the Suevi from the Gaulish penn, 
after they crossed the Elbe in the fifth century b.c. There- 
fore the change from p to f was subsequent to this. On 
the other hand, the Gmc. Donavi, ' Danube, 1 from Latin 
Ddnuvius, preserves the d unchanged, which shows that 
the change from d to d had already taken place before the 
incorporation of this name in Gmc. speech, which occurred 
about 100 b.c. (On the relative chronology of the shifting 
processes, see Kluge, Paid und Braune's Beitr., ix., 173, etc., 
and Streitberg, loc. cit., § 126.) 

Examples of Fourth Shifting of Voiced Stops : 

Aryan b, Gmc. p : Goth, paida, ' coat ' ; O.E. pad ; Gk. 
(Thracian) /3acT7], ' shepherd's coat of skins. 1 

Aryan d, Gmc. t: Goth, ga-^amjan, 'tame 1 ; O.E. 
tfemian ; Gk. Ba/idco ; Lat. cZom-are. 

Aryan g, Gmc. k: O.E. cran, 'crane 1 ; O. Sax. crano ; 
Gk. yipavos. 



202 THE GERMANIC FAMILY 

Characteristic Treatment of the Aryan Vowels in Germanic. 
A. Isolative Changes. 

Aryan o is unrounded to a in Gmc. : Lat. ovis, 6 sheep'; 
Gk. ot? 3 from *ofi? ; Goth, awis-tr, 'sheepfold'; Lat. hostis, 
'enemy,' 'stranger'; Goth, gast-s ; O. Sax., O.H.G. gast, 
' guest.' Thus original o and a are indistinguishable in Gmc. 

Aryan a is rounded to 6 in Gmc., and is thus levelled 
under original 6 : Gk. (fipdrcop, ' brother ' ; Lat. frdter ; 
Goth. bro\ar ; O.E. bro\or ; Lat. sdgire, ' perceive quickly 
and keenly '; Goth. soA;-jan, ' seek.' 

Aryan e is lowered to ie in Gmc. This ce is again raised 
to e in Goth ; in West Gmc. it becomes a, and in O.E. 
this a is again fronted to ce : Gk. TL"6r)-/M, ' place,' etc. ; 
Goth, ga-deps, 'deed'; O.H.G. tat; O.E. deed; Gk. vrj-fia, 
6 thread'; Lat. ne-re, 'sew'; Goth, nepla, 'needle'; O.H.G. 
nadala ; O.E. ncedl. 

Aryan oi is levelled under ai in Gmc. : Gk. otvy, ' one, 
upon a die ' ; O. Lat. oinos (later unus) ; Goth, ains ; O. Lat. 
moitare (later miltare), 'change'; Goth, maidjan, 'alter.' 

Aryan ou is levelled under au in Gmc. : Gk. ovs, from 
*o#o?, from * ou<7o?, ' ear ' ; Lat. auris, from * ausis, from 
*ousis ; Goth, auso ; Gk. a-rcovco, from Aryan *sm-kous-jd, 
' hear ' ; Goth, haus-jan, ' hear.' 

Aryan ei becomes I mi Gtoc. : Gk. nreiOw, ' persuade ' ; 
Lat. fedo, from *feido ; Goth, beidan, ' expect ' (^ in 
Goth. = i) ; O.E. fodaw ,• O.H.G. bltan. 

[Aryan ei is probably the origin of an e sound which 
appears as such in the Gmc. languages.] 

The other Aryan vowels are unaffected by isolative 
change in Gmc. 



VOWEL CHANGES 203 

B. Combinative Changes. 

Aryan <?, which is otherwise preserved in Gmc., is raised 
to i in Gmc. under the following conditions : (1) Before i 
or j in the following syllable: Gk. fjuiaaos (from */xe#-jo9) 
Lat. medius ; Goth, midjis ; O.E. midd ; O. Sax. middi 
Gk. efrfiai (from *o-eSjo/z<zi), 'sit'; Lat. sed-ere ; O. Sax 
sittian ; O.E. siitan (from *sett-jan) ; O.H.G. sizzen 
(2) e becomes i zofon followed by a nasal + another 
consonant : Gk. irevOepos, ' father-in-law , (literally, ' rela- 
tion'); Lith. be?idras, 'companion,' 1 from Lat. of-feiid-iK, 
root *bhendh- ; Goth., O.E., O. Sax. bindan. 

[e also becomes i in Gmc. in unstressed syllables ; cf 
O.E. pi. fet, 'feet,' from *fotiz (nom. sing. fot\ Lat. 
ped-es.] 

Apart from these conditions, e remains in Gmc. : 
Gk. e'Sct), ' eat ' ; Lat. edo ; O.E., O. Sax. etan ; Gk. epyov, 
6 work' (from *Fepyov) ; O. Sax. werJc ; O.H.G. were ; and 
so on. 

West Germanic Characteristics. 

The Gmc. sound system underwent but few changes in 
W. Gmc, but these few are important. 

The change of ce to a has already been mentioned. In 
addition, the combinative treatment of i and u must be 
noted. 

Gmc. i remains in W. Gmc, unless followed in the 
next syllable by a or 6, in which case it was lowered to e : 
O.E., O.H.G. nest, 'nest,' from *nizdo (cf. Lat. ?iidus, 
from *nizdos). 

Of course, if n + consonant intervened between i and d, o, 
i remained. Gmc. u also remained, apart from the presence 



204 THE GERMANIC FAMILY 

of a following d, <5, in which case it was lowered to o in 
W. Gmc. : O.E. oxa ; Goth, auhsa ( = *uhsa) ; Scrt. uksan ; 
O.E. gold, ' gold,"* from Gmc. * guldto ; cf. kulta, ' gold,' 
a very early Gmc. loan-word in Finnish. 

The above account of the treatment of Aryan sounds in 
Germanic is the merest outline. The question of the lip- 
modified back consonants, of consonantal combinations, 
and of the special W. Gmc. treatment of i and u between 
vowels, have not been dealt with ; on all these points the 
reader should consult Streitberg's Urgerm. Grammatik. 



CHAPTER XI 

THE HISTORY OF ENGLISH: GENERAL REMARKS ON 
THE SCOPE AND NATURE OF THE INQUIRY, AND 
THE MAIN PROBLEMS CONNECTED WITH IT 

If it were necessary to answer as briefly as possible the 
question, What does the history of English involve ? it 
might be said that, given the English language as it now 
exists, in all its forms, spoken and written, historical in- 
quiry should attempt to trace the origin and development 
of the characteristic features of each. 

This is the ideal of completeness ; practically the 
history of English is mainly concerned with the rise, on 
the one hand, of present-day polite spoken English, and, 
on the other, with that of the literary dialect. The 
problems herein involved are sufficiently complicated, and 
the history of the modern dialects, or forms of popular 
speech, at any rate in its minute detail, is held to be the 
work of the special investigator. At the same time, it is 
important to have some conception of the popular dialects, 
and to understand as clearly as possible their mutual 
relations, as well as their relation to, and influence upon, 
the more cultivated and artificial forms of English speech. 

Two methods of procedure are open to the student. 
He may either start with the language as he knows it, 

205 



206 THE HISTORY OF ENGLISH 

and trace it backwards, step by step, to the earliest forms 
preserved in the oldest written documents ; or, starting 
with these, he may work forwards to the present day. 
Whichever method be chosen, it is necessary to have at 
least some knowledge of the language at each stage of its 
development, and ; further, it is of the highest importance 
that the student should endeavour to realize as far as 
possible each stage as a living language which was actually 
spoken. In fact, every step we take into the past of a 
language involves a process of reconstruction : first, an 
interpretation of the written symbols, and then the 
gradual realization of the consciousness of the part, so 
that the sentences begin to pulsate with life, and become 
for us the living expression of the thoughts and emotions 
of the men who uttered them. There can be no doubt 
that the best way to cultivate this power of getting into 
sympathetic touch with the speech of a bygone age is to 
train the perceptions and the sensibilities in the school of 
modern speech, and for this reason, as well as for others 
repeatedly argued in these pages, the study of the spoken 
language of our own time is the best training-ground for 
historical study. 

Each period of the development of English presents 
special problems to the investigator — problems which 
depend partly upon the nature of the changes which the 
language itself undergoes, partly upon the social con- 
ditions and general historical and political events which 
affected the linguistic conditions, and partly, also, upon the 
form in which the records of each age have come down to 
us. The minute investigation of the dialectal varieties in 
Old and Middle English is the business of the specialist, 



ENGLISH SPEECH IN EARLIER PERIODS 207 

and many of the details which are of great interest and 
importance for him have but little bearing upon the 
development of present-day English. 

The solution of one and the same kind of problem may 
demand a different method at different times. Thus the 
reconstruction of the pronunciation, which is necessarily our 
first care in dealing with the written records of all periods 
earlier than our own, offers difficulties of quite a different 
kind in Old English from those which meet us in attempt- 
ing to realize the sounds of Shakespeare. In the latter 
case we have a considerable body of direct contemporary 
testimony, sometimes, it is true, rather contradictory, as 
to the phonetic values expressed by the symbols in ordinary 
spelling ; in the former the precise sound which the letters 
were intended to express can only be inferred indirectly 
from the spelling of foreign words of whose pronunciation 
at the time something is known, by the help of com- 
parative philology, or by considering the later develop- 
ments, since the O.E. period. On the other hand, in 
dealing with the written language of periods which had 
no stereotyped orthography, we have, at any rate, the 
advantage of being warned by a change in the spelling 
of a probable change in sound, whereas for the last 
400 years — although, as can be shown from other 
sources, considerable changes in English pronunciation 
have taken place — the spelling during this period has 
varied so little that, were there no other means of in- 
formation, we might suppose that sound change had been 
arrested since early in the sixteenth century. 

Probably the best course for the student of the history 
of English to pursue is first to make himself acquainted 



208 THE HISTORY OF ENGLISH 

with the chief characteristics of each period, and then to 
construct for himself as complete a picture as possible of 
the gradual passing of the speech of one period into that 
of the next, until the whole space of time covered by the 
records is filled in. A narrative which should thus set forth 
in outline the changes through which our language has 
passed during the last 1,200 years, might with advantage, 
in the first instance, be limited to the history of the 
modern literary language, and that form of spoken 
English which most closely resembles it. The question 
would thus be, What is the relation of these modern 
forms to the earlier forms of English ? The scope of this 
inquiry might be extended, especially by Scotch students, 
so as to include the rise of Scots, as a form of speech so 
distinct from English, that it deserves to be ranked as 
another language. No other group of English dialects, 
except those out of which the literary and polite spoken 
English grew, possesses the distinction which Scots 
achieved of being for centuries the speech of kings and 
scholars, of poets and historians ; the language at once of 
the Court, the Government, the Church, and of Literature. 
Besides the problems connected with changes in sound, 
the student of the history of English must naturally trace 
the modifications in the inflexional system which have 
taken place, many of which are also associated with sound 
change. The impoverishment of the English grammatical 
inflexions has been due very largely to phonetic changes 
which have occurred in the unstressed syllables of words, 
whereby many final syllables have been lost altogether, 
while others have been very considerably altered from 
their original form. The changes in our accidence, 



THE SOURCES OF LOAN-WORDS 209 

especially the loss of many case-endings, have brought 
about very marked changes in the form and structure of 
the sentence. 

Inseparable, too, from the growth of culture, and from 
a general expansion of a nation's genius, is the develop- 
ment of the vocabulary. It is natural that the meaning of 
words should change as the group of ideas associated with 
a given word is now widened, now contracted, but perhaps 
the most considerable modifications of our vocabulary at 
all ages have come from without, by the incorporation of 
altogether new material from other languages. Every 
text-book upon the history of English contains more or 
less reliable lists of foreign words which have passed at 
various times, and from different sources, into usage in the 
English tongue. It will be convenient to deal with the 
question of loan-words under a separate heading within 
each section which is devoted to a period in the growth 
of English. Points of interest in connection with this 
subject are: to distinguish words of foreign origin which 
have got into English, through the spoken language, from 
those which have been incorporated from merely literary 
sources ; to determine the period at which any given word 
or class of words passed into English. One of the chief 
popular fallacies in dealing with loan-words is the assump- 
tion that the latter question can be settled out of hand 
by an appeal to history. Thus, for instance, it is com- 
monly assumed by popular writers that all Latin words 
which occur in Old English, and which refer to ideas or 
objects connected with the Christian religion, were in- 
corporated into English at the time of the mission of 
St. Augustine. As a matter of fact, some of these words 

14 



210 THE HISTORY OF ENGLISH 

are centuries older, and were certainly acquired by the 
heathen English, already in their Continental homes. The 
one sure test of the immediate source of an early loan- 
word, and the date of its importation, is its form, and the 
consideration of the changes which it has undergone in 
common with the native element of the language into which 
it has been borrowed. If this test cannot be applied, as 
is sometimes the case, there always remains a certain 
dubiety as to the precise period of borrowing. 

In studying the various forms of English preserved in 
the literary remains of the Old and Middle periods, it is 
important to keep the several dialects distinct, and, 
further, not to confuse the language of different ages. 
It often happens that a work comes down to us in several 
manuscripts, copied at different times by a variety of 
scribes, whose native dialect is not always the same as 
that of the original. In such cases there is naturally a 
mixture of dialectal forms, and not infrequently, also, 
a mixture of forms which belong to the period of the 
original with those which are contemporary with the 
copy. This confusion arises from the fact that the scribe 
sometimes faithfully copied his text, but sometimes also 
wrote the form which was current in his own speech, 
instead of the more archaic form of his model. 

Therefore the study of the dialect of a given area, at 
a given period, must be based, in the first instance, upon 
texts whose date and dialect can be fixed beyond any 
doubt. Although the spelling in Old and Middle English 
texts is on the whole fairly consistent and regular, there 
is always the apparently exceptional spelling, which occurs 
here and there, and which deserves attention. The 



INCONSISTENCIES OF SPELLING IN EARLY MSS. 211 

questions raised by the occasional departure of scribes 
from the conventional spelling are : Do they represent a 
new tendency which is springing up within the dialect, 
a new departure from the older mode of speech which the 
traditional spelling records, and which the scribe from time 
to time, either deliberately or unconsciously, expresses in a 
phonetic spelling ? Are they mere careless scribal errors ? 
Do they represent another type of pronunciation in use 
within the dialect, due to class or other differentiation, 
or to the influence of another dialect ? While it is unwise 
to attach too much importance to sporadic eccentricities 
of spelling on the part of a scribe, they should all receive 
consideration, and anything like repeated deviation from 
the tradition should be carefully investigated, since if it 
can be shown to express some reality of pronunciation, 
it is certainly of value, and may throw great light upon 
the speech habits of the period. 

Chief Points of General Method. 

There are certain general principles of method which 
should be constantly borne in mind in the historical study 
of language, and these may now be summarized, even at 
the risk of repetition, for they follow logically from that 
view of language which this work has attempted to set 
forth, and some of the principles have already been 
formulated in this and in earlier chapters. 

1. We must not be misled by the inconsistency of the 
written representation of sounds in early records, into 
assuming an inconsistency of pronunciation. Such incon- 
sistency of spelling may occur while the pronunciation 
itself is perfectly constant. A fluctuation in the graphic 

14—2 



212 THE HISTORY OF ENGLISH 

representation of sounds is particularly likely to occur in 
a period in which a series of sound changes are in process 
of being carried out, or have just been completed. The 
fluctuation in spelling may make it appear as though, in 
the same text, there were traces both of the beginning and 
the end of a particular process of sound change. Even 
when a spelling is to a great extent phonetic, as in 
O.E., it will generally be slightly behind the actual 
pronunciation. 

% Apparent anomalies in the development of sounds, 
or ' exceptions ' to well-established sound laws, may result 
from a mixture of dialectal forms; and the ' exception ' 
may prove to be merely an importation from another 
dialect in which that particular line of development is 
quite normal. The mixture of dialects is especially common 
in literary forms of language, which represent historically 
the pure form of no single dialect, but a conglomeration 
of several. The higher the development and cultivation 
of a literary dialect, the more artificial it is likely to be, 
and the further removed from any naturally-developed 
form of living speech. Good examples of artificial literary 
dialects are the Greek Kotvrj, Classical Latin, and Modern 
Polite English. In O.E. and early M.E. the various forms 
of written English each represent pretty accurately the 
dialect of the province in which the text was written. 
But Chaucer's English is no longer the dialect of a 
particular geographical area, but rather a fully-developed 
literary or official form of speech which shows considerable 
dialectal mixture. These literary or official dialects often 
become, with certain modifications, the traditional mode 
of speech of a social class, or even of a whole country. 



GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF HISTORICAL METHOD 213 

3. Many apparent ' exceptions ' are the result of 
Analogy, and not of Phonetic development at all. The 
history of every language has numerous examples of forms 
of this nature. In Mod. Eng. the preterites of ' break ' 
and * speak ' are not the representatives of O.E. brcec, 
sp(r)ccc, but are formed on the analogy of the p.p. brok-en, 
spok-en. This process of forming new associations, as we 
have seen (Chapter VII.), is always at work at all periods 
of every language. In postulating Analogy in explanation 
of a form which has not followed the ordinary phonetic 
development, it is our business to discover the group of 
forms associations with which has caused the new departure 
in question. 

4. After a sound has changed, within the dialect of a 
given community, to something quite different from its 
original form, the same sound may reappear within the 
same dialect from some other source, and may then 
remain, the tendency to change it having passed away. 
The Southern and Midland dialects of English rounded 
all O.E. a sounds to 6 (o) in early Transition M.E., 
O.E. ham, etc., becoming horn, etc. But in M.E. a 
reappeared again from two sources : (1) O.E. -a- in open 
syllables was lengthened — O.E. sc(e)amu<^ M.E. scheme. 
(2) Norman-French a in loan-words — e.g., dame, ' lady. 1 
This new a survived during the whole M.E. period, until 
it was fronted in the sixteenth century to (ai), which later 
became (e), whence Standard English (ti) as in ' shame" 
(Jezm) and 'dame"* (deim). 

5. Where diversity of sound exists, we assume it to 
represent original diversity, unless the conditions whereby 
one sound was differentiated into several, can be clearly 



214 THE HISTORY OF ENGLISH 

shown. Thus in O.E. the vb. 'to bear' has the following 
forms of the root : Inf. for-an, pret. sing, beer, pret. pi. 
fer-on, p.p. 6or-en. Here we assume that there were 
originally four distinct forms of the root in Gmc., since 
nothing that we know of the habits of O.E. leads us 
to believe that any conditions are present in these cases 
to split up one sound into four; and, further, a com- 
parison of the other old Gmc. tongues points also to the 
conclusion that so far as Gmc. is concerned, there were 
always four distinct forms of the root (cf. examples of e- 
series of Aryan Ablaut, under *bher- in Chapter IX.). On 
the other hand, if we take the three vowels a, e, ea, in the 
O.E. racu, 'narrative 1 ; reccean, inf. 'to narrate'; reahte, 
pret. ' narrated," we have every reason to assume that in 
this case one original Gmc. sound a has been differentiated 
into three sounds in O.E. itself, and the conditions of that 
differentiation can be stated (cf. Chapter XII., sections on 
z-mutation and Fracture). Thus we should reconstruct the 
earlier forms *ra~ka-, *reeA;A;-jan, *rah-t&, respectively, to 
correspond to the three O.E. forms above. 

6. The same sound, as we have just seen, may have a 
various development in the same dialect under different 
phonetic conditions. Later on, when the tendencies of 
combinative change which produced the variety have passed 
away, the different forms may be used promiscuously, and 
without regard to the original conditions under which 
they severally arose. It should be remembered that com- 
binative change may operate not only within what we 
call the ' word,"* but also within the breath-group, or, as it 
often is, the sentence. 

The two words 'of and 'off' in Modern English, were 



DOUBLETS DUE TO VARYING STRESS 215 

originally doublets of the same word, the voiced final 
consonant occurring in cases where the word was unstressed 
in the sentence, the voiceless final when it was stressed. 
Now the two forms are independent and distinct words, 
each specialized to express a different meaning; and 
although 'of,'' as it happens, is usually without stress, 
'off 1 may be used equally in stressed or unstressed posi- 
tions. In the same way the word seint, i saint, 1 had two 
forms in M.E. : (sin) in unstressed positions, (saint) when 
stressed. The latter strong form has become Mod. Eng. 
' saint ' (seint) ; the former has become (sen or sant), as in 
St. Andrews (s9nt aendruz) or St. John, the name of the 
Apostle (son dz^n). But in the family name St. John, 
pronounced (sindzan), the stress has been shifted to the 
first syllable, which, however, still preserves the original 
form which it acquired in unstressed positions ; and the 
same is true of the name St. Leger (silidza) as regards the 
vowel, although here the -n has been lost. The sub- 
stantive 6 saint, 1 however, always preserves the strong or 
stressed form, even when it occurs with weak stress in a 
sentence. 

The principles of modern philological method have been 
formulated on various occasions, notably by Brugmann — 
e.g., Morphol. Untersuch., i., p. xiii, etc. ; Zum heutigen 
Stand der Sprachwissensch., p. 53, etc. ; Grundr. 2 , pp. 63- 
72 ; Griech. Gr.% pp. "2-9. 



CHAPTER XII 

HISTORY OF ENGLISH : THE OLD ENGLISH PERIOD 

The designation Old English is applied to that period of 
the history of our people which extends from the first 
settlement of Germanic tribes in these islands down to the 
coming of the Normans. The O.E. period of the language 
may roughly be estimated as reaching down to 1050, after 
which period the chief features of the next, or Transition 
period from Old to Middle English, begin to be fairly well 
established, and expressed in the written forms which have 
come down to us. 

Within the O.E. period of the history of the language 
it is possible to- distinguish, from the documents, three 
stages of development, which are known respectively as 
the Earliest, down to 750 ; Early, down to 900 ; Late, 
down to 1050. The dates here given are, of course, only 
approximate, since neither the imperfection of the series of 
records, nor the slow and gradual mode of growth in 
language, permit us to make a precise hard-and-fast division 
between different periods. 

There are three chief types of dialectal variety distin- 
guishable from the records : Saxon, of which West Saxon 
became the principal dialect of literature ; Kentish, the 

216 



CLASSIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS 217 

dialect of the Jutes ; Anglian, which includes both North- 
umbrian and Mercian, 

Sources of our Knowledge of O.E. 

Practically everything of value from a literary point of 
view is preserved in W.S., having been either written in that 
dialect originally or copied into it at a later period. There 
are a certain number of Charters, which possess great his- 
torical interest, in other dialects, especially Kentish. There 
is little original prose, except Homilies and Laws, which 
are mainly W.S. in form ; and of the translated literature 
the greatest part, and that which is of the chiefest interest, 
the authentic works of King Alfred, is in the same dialect — 
the other dialects, apart from charters, being represented 
almost entirely by translations of the Psalms and inter- 
linear versions of the New Testament. There are glossaries, 
which are of great value to students of the language, in 
Saxon, Kentish, and Mercian dialects. The poetical 
literature, with the exception of a few fragments in Early 
Northumbrian, exists in manuscripts of the tenth and 
eleventh centuries in a dialect which, while it is largely 
W.S., yet shows numerous characteristics of other dialects, 
the result, probably, of late copying from Anglian by 
W.S. scribes. 

The following is a list of the chief remains which are 
important for the study of the several dialects. It will 
be noticed that very little Earliest W.S. has been pre- 
served. 

A. Earliest Texts. 

1. Northumbrian. — Northumbrian Fragments, in Sweet's 
Oldest English^ Texts, p. 149, etc. Liber Vitas, 



218 THE OLD ENGLISH PERIOD 

O.E.T., p. 153, etc. Northumbrian Genealogies, 
O.E.T, p. 167, etc. Names in Moore MS. of Bede's 
Eccl. Hist., O.E.T, p. 131, etc. 

2. Mercian. — Epinal Glossary {circa 700), Corpus Glossary 

(circa 750), in O.E.T. Charters of eighth century 
(Latin, containing Eng. words and names), O.E.T. , 
p. 429, etc. 

3. Kentish. — Charters (Latin, but containing Eng. words 

and names), O.E.T., p. 427, etc. These documents 
belong to seventh and eighth centuries ; the earliest 
of these, No. 4 in O.E.T., is the oldest written 
document we possess containing English forms. 

4. West Saxon.— Charter No. 3 in O.E.T. 

B. Ninth-Century Texts (Early). 

1. Northumbrian. 

2. Mercian. — Vespasian Psalter and Hymns, O.E.T., p. 

183, etc. ; the Hymns also Sweet, A.S. Reader, 
p. 117, etc. 

3. Kentish. — Numerous Charters, mostly English, O.E. T., 

p. 441, etc. ; three in A.S. Reader 7 , p. 189, etc. 
Bede Glosses (MS. Cott., C. II.), circa 900, O.E.T., 
p. 179, etc. 

4. West Saxon. — Works of King Alfred : Cur a Pastor alis, 

Sweet, 1871 ; Orosius, Sweet, 1880. Parker MS. of 
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle down to 891, Ed. Plummer. 
Two of the Saxon Chronicles, 2 vols. Oxford, 1892- 
1900. 



LATE O.E. DOCUMENTS 



219 



C. Late Texts. 



Northern 
Area 



-'-: 



{Durham Ritual: Surtees Soc, 
vol. iv., 1840. Cf also Skeat's 
collation, TV. Phil Soc, 1879. 
Durham Book or Lindisfarne 
Gospels : Skeat, Gospels in 

1. North- \ Anglo-Saxon, 1871-1887. 
umbrian (Rushworth MS: Interlinear ver- 
sion of SS. Mark, Luke, John, 

Southern known as Rushworth 2 , Matthew 
Area I in this MS. being in Mercian. 
Cf. Skeat's ed. of Gospels 
above. 

2. Mercian. — Rushworth 2 : Interlinear Gloss to Matthew, 

second half of tenth century. Cf Skeat above. 
Glosses from MS. Royal, 2 A. 20. Ed. by Zupitza in 
Zeitschrift fur deutsches Altertum, Bd. xxxiii., p. 47, 
etc. (circa 1000). 

3. Kentish. — Glosses: Zupitza in Ztschr. f d. A., xxi., 

p. 1, etc., and xxii., p. 223, etc. ; also in Wright- 
Walker's Vocabularies, p. 55, etc., 1884. Hymn, 
known as ' Kentish Hymn,'' in Kluge's ags Lesebuch 
and Sweet's A.S. Reader. Psalm L., known as ' Kentish 
Psalm, in Kluge's Lesebuch. 

4. West Saxon. — jElfric's Grammar and Glossary (circa 

100), Zupitza, 1880. jElfrk's Homilies, Ed. Thorpe, 
1844-1846. West Saxon Gospels, MS. Corpus, Cam- 
bridge (written at Bath, circa 1000). Cf Skeafs 
Ed. of Gospels in Anglo-Saxon above. 

5. Another Saxon Dialect, but not the West Saxon of 



220 THE OLD ENGLISH PERIOD 

iElfred nor of Mihic, is represented by a Gloss. 
{Harleian MS. 3,376 ; printed Wright- Wiilker, 1, 192, 
etc.) and a set of Homilies, known as the Blickling 
Homilies (Ed. Morris, E.E.T.S., 1880). Both of 
these texts are tenth century, the latter MS. being 
dated 979 in the text itself. 

Authorities on O.E. Grammar. — The best general authori- 
ties on O.E. Grammar are Billbring, Altenglisclies Elemen- 
tarbueh, Heidelberg, 1902 ; and Sievers, Angels achsische 
Grammatik, Halle, 1898. These works deal with all the 
problems of O.E. Grammar, the latter entering into the 
discussion of dialectal differences with considerable minute- 
ness. A brief but reliable outline is found in the Gram- 
matical Introduction to Sweet's Anglo-Saxon Reader, 
seventh edition. 

The following special monographs will be found useful 
for advanced, detailed study of O.E. dialects : 

Northumbrian Texts. 

Lindelof, V. : Die Sprache d. Rituals von Durham, Helsing- 
fors, 1890. WorterbucJi zur interlinear glosse des 
Rituale Ecclesiae Dunelmensis, Bonner Beitrage zur 
Anglistic ix., 1901. Die Silchiorthumbrischen Mun- 
dart (Die Spr. d. gl. Rushworth 2 ), Bonner Beitr., x., 
1901. Gloss ar zur altnorthumbrischen Evangelien- 
berzetzung die sogenannte Glosse Rushworth, 2 Helsing- 
fors, 1897. 

Lea, E. M. : The Language of the Northumbrian Gloss to 
the Gospel of St. Marie, Anglia, xvi., 62-206. 

Fuchsel, H. : Die Sprache d. northumbrischen interlinear- 



MONOGRAPHS ON O.E. DIALECTS 221 

version zum Johannes- Evangelium, Anglia, xxiv., 
1-99. 

[Both of the above, Lea and Fuchsel, deal with the 

Lindisfarne Gospels ', or Durham Book.] 

Cook, A. S. : A Glossary of the Old Northumbrian Gospels 
{Lindisfarne), Halle, 1894. 

Mercian Texts. 
Dieter, F. : Die Sprache und Mundart, der dltesten englis- 

chen Denkmdler (Espinal and Corpus Glossaries), 

Gottingen, 1885. 
Chadwick, H. M. : Studies in Old English (deals with the 

old Glossaries), 1899. 
Brown, E. M. : Spr. d. Rushworth Glossen (Rushw. 1 ), 

Part I., Gottengen, 1891. The Language of the Rush- 

worth Gloss to Mattheiv, Part II., Gottingen, 1892. 
Zeuner, R. : Die Spr. d. Kentischen Psalters (Vespas. A. 1), 

Halle, 1881. 

[This text ( Vespasian Psalter) was formerly supposed 
to be Kentish, though now universally recognised 
as Mercian.] 

Thomas, P. G.,and Wyld, H. C. : A Glossary of the Mer- 
cian Hymns (in Vespas. A. 1) in Otia Merseiana, 
vol. iv., Liverpool, 1904. 

Grimm, C. : Glossar. z. Vesp. Ps. und d. Hymnen, Heidel- 
berg, 1906. 

Kentish Texts. 

Wolf, R. : Untersuchung d. Laute in d. Kentischen Urkun- 

den, Heidelberg, 1893. 
Williams, Irene : Grammatical Investigation of the Old 

Kt. Glosses (MS. Vespas. D. vi.), Bonner Beitr., xix., 

1906. 



222 THE OLD ENGLISH PERIOD 

West Saxon. 

Cosijn, P. J. : Altivests'dchsische Grammatik, Haag, 1888. 

[This is practically an exhaustive monograph based 
upon AlforcTs Cara Pastoralis. It treats also, 
though less fully, with the forms of the Parker 
Chronicle. It is invaluable for the study of 
Early West Saxon.] 

Fischer, F. : The Stressed Vowels of Alfric's Homilies, 

Publications of Mod. Lang. Assoc, of America, vol. i., 

Baltimore, 1889. 
Brull, H. : Die altenglische Latein-Grammatik des Alfric, 

Berlin, 1904. 
Trilsbach, G. : Die Lautlehre d. spdtwestsdchsischen 

Evangelien, Bonn, 1905. 
Harris, M. A. : Glossary of the West Saxon Gospels, 

Boston, 1899. 

Saxon Patois. 

Hardy : Die Sprache d. BlicMing-Homilien, Leipzig, 1899. 
Boll, P. : Die Sprache d. altenglischen Glossen in Ms 
Harley 3,376, Bonner Beitr. xv., 1904. 

Numerous articles on special points are referred to in 
the works here enumerated, and in the grammars of Sievers 
and Biilbring. 

Pronunciation of Old English. 

This is established by the following considerations : 
(1) Old English was first written, after the introduc- 
tion of Christianity, in the British form of the Latin 
alphabet. The contemporary pronunciation of Latin is 
therefore important in settling the probable value of the 
symbols in O.E., since the English would naturally use the 



PRONUNCIATION OF VOWELS 



223 



symbol which represented in Latin the nearest sound to 
their own. (2) Phonetic considerations based (a) upon 
the West Germanic origin of the English sound, (b) upon 
the subsequent history of the sound in Middle and Modern 
English. (3) A comparison of varieties of spelling of the 
same word, representing different scribal attempts to ex- 
press the same sound, or unconscious lapses from the tra- 
ditional mode of spelling, in favour of one more phonetic. 
(4) Accents in the manuscripts indicating quantity ; length 
is also sometimes expressed by doubling the vowel. 

In spite of everything, however, there must always 
remain some uncertainty and difference of opinion on 
certain points. 

The following table shows the probable value of the 
O.E. symbols of the vowels : 





Unrounded Vowels. 


Rounded Vowels. 


Back. 


Front. 


Back. 


Front. 


High ... 

Mid 

Low 


a 

a (or mid ?) 


1 
e 
se 


u 
o 


f 
fi«g) 



There are also combinations of above in the diphthongs 
H, m (!o<0 ; M «W.S. M or m ; Kt. §5 or 10 ; North. 
To; Mer. e73). [The marks of length are only occasional 
in the manuscripts.] 

As regards the question of whether the above vowels 
were 'tense 1 or 'slack,' it is probable that the High and Mid 



224 THE OLD ENGLISH PERIOD 

vowels in the front series (unrounded) existed in a ' tense ' 
form, both long and short, and, further, that a short mid- 
front-slack also existed, having a different origin. It is 
usual among English scholars to write this vowel £, a symbol 
which is found in some manuscripts. 

The symbol Ue (mid-front-round) hardly occurs in W. 
Saxon texts, e being the symbol used already in Early 
W. Saxon. This probably implies that unrounding took 
place earlier in this dialect than in the others. In North- 
umbrian oe is used during the whole O.E. period. On the 
whole, it is possible that all the round vowels were tense. 

Originally, doubtless, (5) low-back-tense-round, and the 
same vowel short and slack, existed, but the long at any 
rate seems to have been levelled under the mid-back-round, 
by, or soon after, the historic period. 

Pronunciation of Old English Consonants. 

In addition to the ordinary Latin consonantal symbols, 
certain letters of Runic origin are habitually used from 
the ninth century onwards to express English sounds which 
did not exist in Latin. Thus p (' thorn ') is written to 
express the point-teeth-open consonant, whether voiced or 
voiceless, and p (' wen'') to express that of ir w^ (lip-back- 
open). 

Before the historic period, the old ~k (back-stop-breath) 
was differentiated in O.E. into a back and a front stop. 
The latter was the ancestor of the Mod. Eng. ' ch '- sound 
(tj). The manuscripts occasionally write k for the former, 
but more often c, which does duty both for the back and 
the front sounds. It is convenient to distinguish the two 
sounds by writing c for the fronted consonant. It is a 



PRONUNCIATION OF b, g, g, eg IN O.E. 225 

disputed point how soon the full (tj) sound, as in Present 
English, developed. Most German scholars insist that 
this sound was fully established quite early in the O.E. 
period. Sweet has always held that the O.E. sound was 
a front stop, which view is shared by the present writer. 
It is merely a question of probabilities, and cannot be 
definitely settled one way or the other. The really 
important thing is to realize that there were two sounds 
in O.E., a back and a front, and to express this fact in 
pronunciation. 

Another symbol whose pronunciation is doubtful is g. 
The O.E. form of this letter is always 3, or 5, down to the 
middle of the eleventh century, after which the Continental 
g is used. There were originally two sounds in West Gmc, 
which were inherited by O.E.^and expressed by the symbol 
g, etc., a back-open-voice and front- open- voice, (i.e., j). 
The back-open, before the historical period, was differen- 
tiated into a back and a front sound, the latter thus being 
levelled under original j to all appearances. These sounds 
continue to be written % without any distinction during 
the O.E. period. It is probable that by the year 1000, 
or thereabouts, the back-open was stopped initially, but 
remained an open consonant medially and finally. 

The O.E. symbol, c}, which represents the doubling of 
old g before j, was, in Sweet's view, pronounced as a voiced 
front stop during the O.E. period. Here again opinions 
are divided, German scholars, Sievers, Bi'ilbring, and Kluge, 
maintaining that the Mod. Eng. sound -' dge ' (dz) was 
already established. 

For a full account and discussion of O.E. pronunciation, 
cf. Biilbring, Element arbuch, pp. 13-31 ; Sweet, History of 

15 



226 THE OLD ENGLISH PERIOD 

English Sounds, pp. 101-149 ; and for an additional dis- 
cussion of O.E. c, g, eg, also Kluge in PauVs Grundriss, 
pp. 989, etc. 

The most practical book for beginners who want to 
learn the language is probably Sweet's First Steps in 
Anglo-Saxon, which should be followed up with his Anglo- 
Saxon Reader (seventh edition). Both works contain a 
short, practical account of the pronunciation, a practical 
grammar, accidence and syntax, as well as well-chosen 
texts, and a glossary. Another book, which may be re- 
commended to beginners is A. S. Cook's First Book in Old 
English, Athenaeum Press, 1903 (third edition), which, in 
addition to phonology, grammar, vocabulary, and texts, 
contains also a useful bibliography. 

Old English Sound Changes. 

The vowel system of O.E. is distinguished from that of 
the other West Gmc. languages, notably from Old High 
German, by a number of characteristic changes which 
took place in the former group of dialects, mostly before 
the period of the documents. These changes are of both 
the Isolative and Combinative classes, and a knowledge of 
them is of importance to those who wish to pursue the 
history of the language in a systematic way, further back 
than Old English itself, and to inquire into its precise 
relationship with the other West Gmc. languages. 

For those whose main object, however, is to trace the 
growth of the Modern Language, and to relate it to the 
earlier forms, a detailed knowledge of the minutiae of O.E. 
sound change is out of place for this particular purpose. 

In the same way, the specialist is deeply interested in 



ISOLATIVE SOUND CHANGES 227 

the dialectal differences of O.E. The most important of 
these consist in the different treatment, in different geo- 
graphical areas, of the original vowel sounds. But these 
early differences are but faintly reflected, even in the full 
M.E. period of the language, and in the Modern speech 
hardly any of the primitive dialectal distinctions can be 
traced. 

The various local treatment of sounds which we find in 
M.E. seems in the light of our present knowledge of O.E. 
to be but of recent growth, and as for the English dialects 
of to-day, their peculiarities, so far as we can trace their 
origin, would appear for the most part not to be more 
than two, or at the most three, hundred years old. 

As in a work like the present space is necessarily 
limited, it will be best in dealing with the phonology of O.E. 
to consider mainly, such typical sound changes, whether 
of common O.E. origin or subsequently developed during 
the O.E. period, within the several dialects, as have left 
their traces upon the language of the present day, of 
which some knowledge is necessary in order to under- 
stand the phenomena of Mod. Eng. grammar. For this 
purpose we shall endeavour to make a judicious selection 
in the following account. 

Changes in the West Germanic Vowels which 
affected Old English generally. 
A. Isolative Changes. 
1. W. Gmc. #<O.E. as: O.E. dceg ; Gothic dags ; 
O.H.G. tac; O.E. aecer, 'field'; O. Sax. akkar ; 
O.H.G. acchar. 
c 2. W. Gmc. a<O.E. ck: O.E. map, 'mowing'; O.H.G. 
mad; O.E. wcepn, 'weapon'; O.H.G. wafan. 

15—2 



228 THE OLD ENGLISH PERIOD 

3. W. Gmc. d (i.e., nasalized a)<^5, then, with loss of 

nasalization, O.E. 6 : pohte, pret. of \encan, from 
\dhta, cf Goth, \dhta ; O.H.G. ddhta, 'thought.' 
[Note. — This nasalized d, which was developed 
already in Germanic itself (cf. under Com- 
binative Changes, pp. 231-233), appears 
rounded to o in the earliest English texts, 
of all dialects. It is probable that originally 
it was a low -back-tense-round, though it may 
have been raised to the mid position quite 
early.] 

4. W. Gmc. ai <^ O.E. a : O.E. ham ; Goth, haims ; 

O.H.G. helm ; O.E. gat, 6 goat '; Goth, gaits ; 
O.H.G. geiz. 

5. W. Gmc. au <^ O.E. ceu, whence ^eo, cea, and finally 

ed in nearly all dialects : O.E. edge, ' eye '; Goth. 
augo ; O.H.G. ouga ; O.E. hedfod, 'head'; Goth. 
haubip ; O.H.G. houbit. 

B. Combinative Changes. 

1. Rounding of W. Gmc. a to o before Nasals. — In O.E. 
texts of all periods, from ninth century onwards, such 
double forms as mann, monn, land, lond, nama, noma, 
6 name,' etc., are found. The oldest texts have only -an- 
in these words, and a comparison with the other Gmc. 
languages leaves no doubt that this is the original form. 
In ninth-century texts, however (King Alfred's period), the 
forms with -on- largely predominate, while later on, in the 
tenth and eleventh centuries, those with -an- are again in 
the majority. 

In M.E. the -on- forms again become frequent, but in 
Mod. Eng. they have almost entirely disappeared, the 
preposition on being the only form which has survived in 



ROUNDING OF A IN O.E. . 229 

the polite language, apart from cases where lengthening 
has taken place (see below). 

It might appear that such words as ' strong? ' long? etc., 
were examples of the preservation of the -on- forms ; but 
this, as we shall see, is not the case, and these forms 
require a different explanation (see p. 273). 

It is impossible to believe in the alternate change of 
-an- to -on-, and of this to -an- in late O.E., and again of 
this back to -on- in M.E., and finally in a return to -an- 
in Mod. Eng. At any rate, there cannot have been an 
alternate process of rounding and unrounding going on for 
centuries. As Sweet pointed out long ago (see Introduction 
to Cura Pastoralis, p. xxii), in all dialects, at all periods, 
both -an- and -on- forms are found ; sometimes one is in 
the majority, sometimes the other. It looks as if a double 
pronunciation existed at the same time amid speakers of 
the same dialect, just as nowadays we hear both (aes) and 
(as) = ' ass, 1 and so on, among persons who otherwise have 
no dialectal peculiarity. The preponderance of this or 
that form may have been quite artificial, and a question 
of fashion. 

2. Rounding of W. Gmc. a to o before Nasals. — This is 
universal in all O.E. dialects from the earliest period. 
Examples are: O.E. mo?ia, 'moon 1 ; O. Sax. and O.H.G. 
mano ; O.E. nomon, pret. pi. of niman, 'take 1 ; O.H.G. 
ndmum, etc. This sound (a), as we have seen, otherwise 
than before nasals, becomes w in O.E., and its subsequent 
non-W. Sax. development is important in the history of 
the language. 

3. Fracture or ' Breclmng? — This is the name given to 
the diphthonging of original O.E. front vowels before 



230 THE OLD ENGLISH PERIOD 

certain consonants or combinations of consonants. This 
change is not, in all its forms, strictly 'common O.E.,' 
since it is more fully developed in W. Sax. and Kentish 
than in the Anglian dialects. The dialectal differences 
in this particular will, however, be discussed subsequently, 
and we may now content ourselves with describing the 
process itself, and the conditions under which it occurs in 
those dialects in which it is most observable. 

The Primitive O.E. front vowels i, e, a? are diph- 
thongized respectively to iu 9 eu, and oeu before h or 
h + another consonant, rr or r + another consonant ; 
ce undergoes the same change before II or I + another 
consonant, and i, e before 7 + h or c. 

The process depends upon the character of the following 
consonants: h was a back-open-voiceless, and 11, rr, or 
I and r, when followed by other consonants, appear to 
have been pronounced either as back consonants, or, 
as is more probable, as strongly inverted consonants — 
that is, with the point of the tongue turned upwards and 
backwards. This mode of articulation is heard to-day in 
the pronunciation of r throughout the whole of the Saxon 
part of England, and also in Oxfordshire. Inverted I, 
or I formed with considerable hollowing out of the front 
part of the tongue, is also common in the Southern 
dialects. The result of this method of articulation was 
that a strong glide vowel was developed between i, e, ce, 
and the following h, 11, etc., and rr, etc. At the present 
day in such a word as 'ale'' we often hear (ai u \) with 
a fairly distinct u-\ike glide before the ' thick ' I 

The glide in O.E. would appear to have been of 
u quality. In the ninth century ceu had become ea, and 



FRACTURE — LOSS OF NASALS 231 

eu eo — in West Saxon at any rate. In an early North- 
umbrian text (Bedels Death Song) iu is still preserved in 
zviur)*i]>, later wior\e\. 

Examples are : 

(1) of ce: O.E. (W.S. and Kt.) eahta, 'eight; O. Sax., 

O.H.G. ahto ; O.E. earm, 'poor, 1 O.H.G. arm; 
O.E. (W.S. and Kt.) ceald, ' cold,' O.H.G. halt. 

(2) of e: OJE. feohtaii, 'fight; vb., O.H.G. fehtan; 

O.E. eor)ye, ' earth; O. Sax. ertha, O.H.G. erda ; 
O.E. eolh, < elk; cf. M.H.G. elch. 

4. Loss of Nasal Consonant before Voiceless Open Con- 
sonants (h, f ]>, s) 9 and the Result of Preceding Vowel. — 
(a) Before h: Since all the Gmc. languages show a loss 
of n and m before a following h, we may assume that this 
loss took place in the common Gmc. period. Before 
disappearing, however, the nasal consonant nasalized the 
preceding vowel, and in O.E., at any rate, the nasalization 
was preserved down to the beginning of the English 
period. Examples: Goth, \agkjan ( = J?agkj«n), 'think; 
pret. ]>dhta ; O.H.G. denken, ddchta, with originally 
nasalized a. The preterite form is from earlier *]>a?jk-ta, 
which became *tyar)h-ta, with the common Gmc. change of 
-kt- to -kt-. The O.E. form \6hte shows the characteristic 
rounding of this nasal vowel, and compensatory lengthen- 
ing after the loss of nasalization. The Primitive O.E. 
distinction between this a and W. Gmc. a is shown by the 
difference of the subsequent treatment in O.E., the latter 
being fronted to ce. 

Another example of this rounding and lengthening in 
O.E. is brohte, pret. of bring-an, which stands for earlier 



232 THE OLD ENGLISH PERIOD 

*brayhta, which became *brdhta. Other vowels than a 
are merely lengthened in compensation for the loss of 
nasality ; thus O.E. \>uhte, pret. of pyncean, 4 seem, 1 from 
]mhte 9 from *\u)jlita; O.E. peon, 'prosper,' is from 
*]>iyhan, which in Prim. O.E. was *\ihan, whence *]>whan 
with Fracture, which in W. Sax. became *]>iii(h)an, 
*]non, and finally peon, with change of io<^eo. In O. Sax. 
this vb. appears as tlillian, and in O.H.G. dilian. The 
original n is seen in another form preserved in O.E., 
gepimgen (originally a participial form), in which earlier 
h has been voiced to g (back-open-voice) by the process 
known as Verner's Law, which depends upon the place of 
the accent. Before g the nasal consonant is not lost. 

(b) Loss of Nasal before f ]> 9 s. — This is a Primitive 
Old English change, but is precisely similar in nature 
and in results to the foregoing. 

O.E. softe, 'soft; O.H.G. samfto ; O.E. top, < tooth \ 
O.H.G. zand, both from earlier * tarty (see ante, pp. 152-3) ; 
O.E. sip, ' journey ,' Goth. sinps, O.H.G. sind ; O.E. gos, 
4 goose,' O.H.G. gans ; O.E. us 9 'us, 1 O.H.G. uns. 

It is probable that the o in these words, as well as in 
the class before mentioned, which show an earlier loss of 
the nasal, was originally different from the other O.E. 6 
(in fot, ' foot,' etc.), which represents an original Gmc. 6. 
The former may have been the low -back-round. In any 
case, there is no graphic distinction made between the 
two sounds in O.E., and their subsequent history has been 
identical. The levelling under one sound almost certainly 
took place early in the O.E. period. 

In words like O.E. gos, top, etc., the process of change 
was apparently as follows • * gans, *gdns, * gas, *gos 9 



THE O.E. PROCESS OF /-MUTATION 233 

gvs. The rounding of the nasalized a was earlier than 
that of a before a nasal consonant, since the earliest texts 
invariably have o in gos, etc., whereas, as we have seen, 
mo?m 9 etc., appear in the earliest records of English with a. 
5. i- orj- Mutation. — This process, often called by the 
German name, i-Umlaut, is common to all the O.E. dialects, 
and there is no O.E. sound change whose traces are so 
perceptible in Mod. Eng. It consists in the fronting of 
an original back vowel, or diphthong, which contained at 
least one back element, by the influence of a following -i- 
or -j- in the following syllable. It is generally held now 
that the -i- or -j- first fronted or front-modified the 
intervening consonant or group of consonants, and that 
this in turn fronted the vowel immediately preceding them.* 
The only front vowel affected is ce, which is raised to e. 
In this case it was possible for the fronting of the vowel 
not to take place until after the i orj had disappeared 
altogether. All that was necessary was that, before being 
dropped, it should have fronted to a greater or lesser 
extent the intervening consonant. The fronting of the 
vowel was a comparatively late process, taking place about 
the beginning of the seventh century, shortly before the 
earliest manuscripts which we possess in O.E. were written. 
It can be shown that i-mutation was later than Fracture, 
for instance, since diphthongs produced by the latter process 
are further affected by the former. In cases where the -i- or 

* When the fronting was caused by -/-, as in -ja- or -jo-stem 
nouns or -jan verbs, the -j- was assimilated to the preceding 1 con- 
sonant, which was thus not only fronted, but lengthened — as in cynn, 
from *kunja, etc. r was not doubled, and -j- remained (after short 
vowels). When final, -j- became -i- and the e in O.E. Cf. here > 
fieri > *h(srj > *harja. 



234 THE OLD ENGLISH PERIOD 

-j- have disappeared in O.E. its original existence can 
usually be established by referring to the cognate word in 
Gothic or Old High German. 

The following examples illustrate the effect of this 
mutation upon the various vowels : 

The mutation of ce is e: O.E. tyccean, 'to cover,' from *\>cekk-jan (cf. O.E. 
\>cec, 'roof'). 
,, . a is se: O.E. ge-sl&gen, 'struck,' p.p. from *slag-in-. 

,, o is e (earlier ce) : O.E. ele, 'oil,' loan-word from Latin 

oleum, W. G-inc. *olja. 
,, wisy: 0. E. cynn, ' race,' ' family, ' from *kunnj, cf. Gothic 

kuni from *kunja. 
O.E. fyllan, 'fill,' from *fulljan (cf. O.E. full), 
a is 3d : O.E. Si&lan, 'bind,' from *saljan (cf. O.E. sal, 
' rope '). 
,, o is e (earlier S) : 1. Original o: O.E. fet, from *fotiz, 

pi. of O.E. fot. 

2. o from o : 0. E. ges, pi. of gos, from *gosi. 

3. o from W. Gmc. a: O.E. feh]>, 'takes,' from 

*fohiJp, *fohi\>, *farjhip (cf. O.E./o, * I take,' 
from *foha, *fdha, *fayha). 
,, uisy: 1. W. Gmc. u : O.E. fyl]>, 'filth,' from *fuli[>, 

0. Snx.fuli\>a (cf. O.E. ffd, 'foul'). 
2. O.E. u : O.E. clystig, ' dusty,' from *dustig 
(cf. O.E. dust, O.H.G. dww£). 

The i-mutation of the O.E. diphthongs will be best 
treated under the head of Dialectal Divergences. 

In some words it might appear that y was the mutation 
of o — e.g., gylden, ' golden,' compared with gold, the 
substantive ; fyocen, c vixen, 1 feminine of fox ; gyde?i, 
6 goddess," compared with god. The fact is that the o in 
the above words is a W. Gmc. change from an earlier 
u before a following a in the stem ending. The original u 
was, however, preserved unchanged when followed by i, so 
that *gidctin-, *fuhsin-, *gudi?i, remained unchanged until 
the period when the following -i- fronted the root vowel 
toy. 



VOWEL LENGTHENING IN O.E. 235 

Lengthening of Short Vowels. — During the O.E. period 
original short vowels were lengthened before the consonantal 
combinations -Id, nd, mb : clld, 6 child '; findan, vb. ' find '; 
camb, ' comb.' These lengthenings are important for the 
subsequent history of the language, their later development 
being similar to that of original long vowels. When these 
combinations are followed by another consonant, such as 
r, which occurs, for instance, in the plural suffix, -ru — 
clldru, lambru, etc. — the lengthening does not take place, 
or is subsequently got rid of. This explains the inter- 
change of diphthong and short vowel in (tjmld — tjildran), 
and also the short vowel in Mod. Eng. (laem), which must 
be explained from the plural type with a short vowel 
in O.E. 

Many later shortenings took place in cases where a third 
consonant follows the vowel in compounds — e.g., hand, 
handfutt, etc. (cf. p. 272, etc., below). 

Dialectal Divergences in the Old English Vowel System. 

Each of the O.E. dialects possesses certain characteristic 
phonological features peculiar to itself alone. The West 
Saxon dialect has more individual peculiarities than any of 
the others which, in a large number of cases, agree in those 
respects in which they differ from West Saxon. Thus it is 
often sufficient to describe a characteristic as West Saxon 
on the one hand, or as non-West Saxon on the other, 
implying by the latter phrase that Northumbrian, 
Mercian, and Kentish agree in that particular respect. 

In Modern English it is comparatively rare that a form 
can be derived only from the exclusively West Saxon type, 
though this sometimes happens. On the other hand, the 
survivals of Anglian peculiarities, common to both North- 



236 THE OLD ENGLISH PERIOD 

umbriaand Mercia, are numerous; a few specifically North- 
umbrian, exist, and a few which are specifically Kentish. 

The following are the chief O.E. dialectal differences 
which can still be traced in Modern Polite English : 

A. Features Common to all the non-West Saxon Dialects. — 
1. Primitive O.E. ce, which remains in W.S., is raised to e 
in the other dialects: W.S. deed, 'deed,' non-W.S. did ; 
W.S. seed, 'seed, 1 non-W.S. sed. The forms with e are the 
ancestral forms of the Mod. Eng. (1) forms, seed, deed, etc. 
The other O.E. ce, the i-mutation of a, is preserved in all 
dialects except Kentish, which raises it to e ; dene, ' clean ' ; 
in other dialects clcene, from *clani. 

% The i-mutation of Pr. O.E. ea (Gmc. au) is %e, later 
y in W.S. ; but in the other dialects e : W.S. liter an, later 
hyran, ' hear,' from *hearjan. Cf. Goth, hausj arT>Gmc. 
*hauzjan, non-W.S. herein. This is the origin of Mod. 
Eng. ' hear ' (hia(r)). The W.S. form, had it survived, 
would have given (haia(r)). 

3. After front consonants, (c, g, sc), ce, and e are diph- 
thongized, in W.S., to ea and ie (later y) respectively. 
This diph thonging does not take place in non-W.S. — 
e.g., sceld, 'shield, 1 W.S. shield, s'cyld ; non-W.S. seeld, 
whence Mod. Eng. (Slid). On the other hand, Mod. Eng. 
chill is apparently from W.S. ci(e)le, and not from non- 
W.S. dele. The W.S. form is from ^cceli, whence *ceali, 
and then ciele, cyle, with i-mutation of ea. 

B. Common Anglian Features. — 1. Pr. O.E. a, ce is not 
diphthongized to ea before I, II, or I + another consonant, 
in Anglian as in W.S., but remains as a, and is subsequently 
lengthened to a : W.S. eald, ' old, 1 Ang. did ; W.S. ceald, 
' cold, 1 Anglian cold; W.S. beald, 'bold, 1 Anglian bald; 



CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VARIOUS DIALECTS 237 

W.S. weald, ' forest, 1 Anglian wald. The long a in these 
words, together with all other O.E. a sounds, was rounded 
to o in M.E. in the South and Midlands, and is the origin 
of Mod. Eng. (mi). Thus the Anglian forms of above 
words gave rise to Mod. Eng. old, cold, bold, wold. The 
W.S. form of the last word appears to be also preserved in 
the modern doublet form weald. 

C. Distinctively Northumbrian Features. — 1. In Late 
Northumbrian the combination weo- appears as wo-. 
The same combination in Late W.S. appears as wu : W.S. 
weor]>, later wnr\, Late Nth. wor]> ; W.S. sweord, ' sword, 1 
later swurd, Late Nth. sword, etc. Mercian and Kentish pre- 
serve weo unaltered. 2. m does not undergo change to eo, 
but preserves the first element unaltered during O.E. period. 

D. Kentish Features. — In Kentish, by the middle of the 
ninth century, the earlier ^-sounds, the result of z-mutation 
of u, had been unrounded and lowered to e. All the other 
dialects preserve y during the whole O.E. period. In M.E., 
as we shall see, the Saxon dialects alone preserved the old 
sound ; the Anglian unrounded it to ~i. Thus, such forms 
as gelt, ' guilt, 1 W.S. gylt ; synn, ' sin, 1 W.§>%em* ,- snetor, 
' wise, 1 W.S. snytor, etc., are typically Kentish. In the 
modern language a few of these forms with old Kentish e 
occur — e.g., merry \ from Kentish merlg = W.S. myrig. The 
cognate substantive mirth, on the other hand, is Anglian as 
regards its spelling, while the actual pronunciation might be 
from either the W.S. or the Anglian type. In a few cases 
the modern forms preserve the M.E. spelling u, which is 
Norman French manner of expressing the old Saxon 
y sound — eg., church, from W.S. cyrce ; bury (vb.), W.S. 
byrgean, M.E. (Southern) burien. In the latter word it is 



238 THE OLD ENGLISH PERIOD 

interesting to note that, although we retain the Southern 
(Saxon) spelling, we pronounce the Kentish vowel e (ben). 
Such words as ridge and bridge, O.E. hrycg, brycg, are 
Middle Anglian in spelling and pronunciation, but the 
Southern or Saxon variants occur in dialectal forms, such 
as Somersetshire burge, with metathesis, and in proper 
names, such as Rudge. 

[Note. — The original O.E. form of cyrce is cir(i)'ce ; the 
y, which is represented by M.E. a, must be due to the 
influence of r.] 

The Old English Vocabulary. 

The native vocabulary closely agrees with that of the 
other W. Gmc. languages, and more particularly with that 
of the Continental Angles, with O. Frisian and O. Saxon. 
The foreign elements are, in the main, from three sources, 
Celtic, Latin, and Old Norse. 

Celtic Loan- Words in Old English. 

The number of these is far smaller than was formerly 
supposed, and it is probable that a thorough investigation 
of Welsh would reveal the existence of a larger number of 
words borrowed from English in the early period into that 
language. 

Among those words of undoubted Celtic origin which 
are found in O.E., it is possible to distinguish at least two 
strata : those which were passed into the vocabulary during 
the common Germanic period, and which survived in the 
several Germanic languages after the separation, and those 
which came independently into the English vocabulary 
through contact of the Germanic settlers in these islands 
with the Celtic inhabitants. 



CELTIC LOAN-WORDS 239 

One of the earliest of the former class is O.E. rice* 
6 kingdom,' ' rule," which is found also in Gothic reiki, 
'kingdom, 1 reiks, 'ruler,' O.S. rlki, O.H.G. rlhhi (Mod. 
Germ, reich). This word in the form *r%g- must have 
been borrowed from Celtic sources before the Pr. Gmc. 
' shifting ' of the original voiced stops b, d, g, to p, t, k ; 
hence the g was unvoiced along with the original Aryan 
voiced stops. In O. Irish the word is rl, with genitive rig, 
which is cognate with Latin rex (rek-s, from *reg-s) and 
reg-o, etc. Mod. Eng. still preserves the word in bishop-ric. 

Other words for which this Pr. Celtic origin is sometimes 
claimed are doubtful, since, instead of being loan-words 
borrowed before the Germanic consonant ' shifting,' they 
may equally well be cognates possessed by Germanic and 
Celtic alike. 

Among words borrowed in Britain in the O.E. period 
may be mentioned dry, ' magician,' in common use in 
poetry, borrowed, apparently, from a form resembling that 
found in O. Irish drui. Mod. Eng. druid is related to this 
word, but has reached us through the French, from Gaulish 
sources. Another word is O.E. dunn, ' dun,' 6 dark brown,' 
from a Celtic type, donnas. Cf. Welsh dwn ( = dun), 
4 dusky,' Irish donn, 6 brown.' Brocc, ' badger ' (cf. O. Ir. 
brocc), occurs already in the Epinal Glossary, and is still 
in dialectal use. 

Latin Element in Old English. 

This forms by far the most considerable part of the 
foreign element in the O.E. vocabulary. The question is 
not so simple as might appear from the lists of Latin loan- 
words which are given in some books on the history of 



240 THE OLD ENGLISH PERIOD 

English. It is possible to distinguish at least three classes 
of words of Latin origin in O.E : (1) Words which formed 
part of the common West Germanic, or common Germanic, 
vocabulary ; (9) words acquired first in this country, 
before the conversion of the English to Christianity ; 
(3) words which passed into O.E. at a later period, after 
the introduction of Christianity, through the influence of 
the Church and the spread of learning. 

The only true test of the period at which any particular 
word was borrowed is its form. It is certain that some 
words relating to Christian ideas and beliefs were adopted 
by the Germanic peoples long before they were converted 
from heathendom ; while, as is natural, the actual adoption 
of the Christian religion, its forms and ceremonies, its 
ideals and its culture, led to the introduction of a host of 
fresh words to express new ideas. It is therefore unsound 
and inaccurate to mix up in one class all the words of 
Latin origin which relate to Christianity, and label them 
' words of Christian origin.'' O.E. cyrce, cirice, ' church, 1 
from Gk. /typoa/cd, ' belonging to the Lord, 1 is a very early 
loan, which goes back at least to the W. Gmc. period 
(cf. O.H.G. chirihha.) 

1. As regards the earliest class of Latin words, those 
acquired in the Continental Period, it is possible that 
some may have passed into W. Gmc. through the medium 
of Celtic ; and, again, it is not always possible, apparently, 
even for Celtic experts, to distinguish with absolute cer- 
tainty between words in Celtic which are Latin loan-words 
and those which are genuine Celtic, cognate with the Latin 
forms. 

The best tests of a Latin word having been adopted in the 



LATIN WORDS FROM CONTINENTAL PERIOD 241 

Gmc. or W. Gmc. period are, first, the retention in genuine 
popular words of the Latin intervocalic p, t, c (k), un- 
affected by the later'Neo- Latin voicing: O.E. 7icep, 'turnip, 1 
Lat. napus; mynet, 'coin, 1 Lat. moneta ; fic-be&m, 'fig-tree,' 
Lat. flcus ; secondly, its occurrence in several Gmc. tongues 
with the characteristic treatment which it would have 
undergone in each language had it belonged to the native 
element of Gmc. or W. Gmc. Thus O.E. street, compared 
with O. Sax. strata, O.H.G. strdzza, Mod. Eng. street, 
from Latin strata via, ' paved way, clearly belonged to the 
common W. Gmc. vocabulary, for the a has been fronted 
to ee in O.E. like original W. Gmc. a, and the O.H.G. 
form shows the High German change of W. Gmc. t to zz. 
In the same way O.E. (W. Sax.) ciese, later cyse, non- 
W. Sax. cese, is a W. Gmc. loan from Latin caseus, whence 
we may assume a form *Msjo-, *kdsi, which gave rise on 
the one hand to O.H.G. chdsi (Mod. Germ, kase), and on 
the other to the English forms. (W. Sax. ciese is from 
earlier *ceasi, from *ccesi, with diphthongization of ee to ed 
after a front consonant, and subsequent i-mutation to Te, 
whence y in Late W. Sax.) Mod. Eng. ' cheese ' is from 
the non-W. Sax. form. Latin Cazsar was adopted into 
Gmc. speech at an early period, the sound of the old diph- 
thong being approximately preserved : Gothic kaisar, 
O.H.G. cheisar. In O.E. the diphthong underwent, in 
common with W. Gmc. ai, the characteristic change to 
a; hence we get O.E. edsere. It is, of course, possible that 
this word was independently borrowed by Gothic and 
by W. Gmc. 

It must be borne in mind that in these loan-words we 
are not dealing with words written down, with the spell- 

16 



242 THE OLD ENGLISH PERIOD 

ing of classical Latin, but with words actually used in 
living popular speech. In popular Latin, b between 
vowels was early weakened to an open consonant, at 
first a pure lip-open, like Gmc. t. This sound is gene- 
rally written /in O.E., though the spelling b is found in 
early texts. In O.H.G. it is written b ; hence Lat. cucur- 
bita, ' gourd," O.E. cyrfet (with i-mutation), O.H.G. cliur- 
bizz; Lat. tabula, 'plank,' 'writing-table,' O.E. tcejl, 'table' 
(for games), O.H.G. zabal, and so on. 

2. Words from Popular Sources acquired in Britain. — 
Wright, in his The Celt, the Roman, and the Saxon, pro- 
pounded the view that the people in the towns in this 
country continued to speak Latin long after the Romans 
had withdrawn from the island, and expresses his belief 
that if Britain had not been settled by the English ' we 
should have been now a people talking a Neo-Latin tongue, 
closely resembling French.' He thinks that the Angles 
and Saxons found the inhabitants of this country speaking 
Latin, and not a Celtic dialect. Pogatscher, in his impor- 
tant book, Zur Lautlehre der Griechischen und Lateinischen 
und Romanischen Lehnworte im Altenglischen, 1888, accepts 
this view in the fullest possible way, going further, indeed, 
than Wright, who, in the passage quoted by Pogatscher 
himself (loc. cit., p. 3), expressly says : ' I have a strong 
suspicion, from different circumstances I have remarked, 
that the towns in our island continued, in contradistinction 
from the country, to use the Latin tongue long after the 
Empire of Rome had disappeared, and after the country 
had become Saxon.' Subsequently, however, Pogatscher's 
views were, to a certain extent, modified by the arguments 
of Loth {Les Mots Latins dans les Langues Rrittoniques, 



LATIN WORDS ACQUIRED FROM BRITISH SPEAKERS 243 

1892), and in an article, Angellsachsen unci Romanen 
(Englische Studien, xix., p. 3, etc.), he apparently con- 
tents himself with Wright's view that Latin was spoken 
in cities, without insisting that it had become the national 
language. The important point, however, is that it seems 
to be well established that a form of Latin — a popular 
dialect which had begun to undergo some of the changes 
characteristic of the Neo-Latin languages — actually was 
spoken in this country for some time after the coming of 
the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. This form of spoken 
Latin was the source of the numerous popular words of 
Latin origin which passed into English during the period 
between the settlement of Britain and the acceptance of 
Christianity, as preached by St. Augustine. But this 
spoken Latin had undergone certain important changes in 
pronunciation by the middle of the fifth century. It no 
longer retained the form of old classical Latin, but had 
advanced in many respects in the same direction as the 
popular forms of Latin on the Continent, which were the 
ancestors of the modern Romance languages. The words 
borrowed from this source into O.E. had naturally already 
undergone the characteristic changes of early Romance, and 
the O.E. forms of them retain, as far as is possible, the pro- 
nunciation which they had in Brito-Romance at the date 
of the borrowing. When once these words had passed 
into O.E. speech they became part and parcel of that 
speech, and underwent the same subsequent changes as 
native O.E. words. 

Among the most characteristic changes of popular Latin, 
which was developing into Romance, is the voicing of p, 
t, and c (k), between vowels. We have seen that those 

16—2 



244 THE OLD ENGLISH PERIOD 

words borrowed from Latin in the Continental period 
retain the above consonants, in this position, unaltered. 
The later words, however, acquired in England, show a 
change of p toy ( = v), of t to d, and of c to g. It should 
be noted that O.E. jf represents a Romance b (voiced stop), 
a sound which did not occur medially in O.E. in the 
earliest period ; g was also pronounced as an open con- 
sonant in the medial position. 

Examples. — Lat. p : capistrum, ' halter,' O.E. caf ester, 
from Brit.-Rom. *~kabestr- ; prqfost, 'officer, 1 Lat. pro- 
positus. Lat. t : nit a, O.E. rude, ' rue ' ; mora\, i sweetened 
wine,' Lat. mordtum, represents a further Romance de- 
velopment of intervocalic d from £ to <f, a voiced open 
consonant. Lat. k: fosnicidum, O.E. Jlnugi, 'fennel'; 
Lat. cucidla, O.E. cugele, ' cowl, monk's hood.' 

The loan-words of early Brito-Latin origin, as well, of 
course, as those of Continental origin, undergo, as has 
been said, such ordinary O.E. sound changes, as took 
place after the date of borrowing. A few examples are : 

(1) Change of & to as : O.E. non-W. Sax. coster, from 
*castr. 

(2) W. Sax. d'iplithonging after front cons. : W. Sax. 
ceaster. 

(3) Fracture: Wyrtgeorn, from *Vortigern; rnearm-stsm, 
Lat. marmor ; sealm, Lat. (p)salnms. 

(4) i-mutation: cycene, from Lat. coquina ; Wyrtgeorn, 
from * Vorti- < * Wurti-. 

The oldest English form of Lincoln on record is 
Lin{d)cylene (A. Sax. Chron., 941, 942, Parker MS.), and 
other manuscripts have -cylne, -kylne. Now, this, the 
genuine O.E. form of the Latin colonia, shows unmis- 



CHANGES IN SPOKEN LATIN 245 

takable signs of having passed through Celtic speech. 
Cylene presupposes a pre-mutation form *culme 9 from 
*colme; the change of o to u when i follows in the next 
syllable being normal in O.E., and observable in many 
Brito-Latin loan-words. It can be shown that a change 
of b to u and of this to y (high-front-round) took place 
in Celtic. But if this word came into English, in the 
place-names or otherwise, from the form * colyna before 
the period of the O.E. i-mutation, (y) would be an un- 
known sound to English speakers, and the nearest approach 
to it in English would be (I). Hence we may assume that 
the earliest English form was colina, whence *culina, and 
finally, with mutation, cyl(e)ne. The O.E. variant -colne, 
whence our spelling -coin, is a later form taken direct from 
literary Latin. 

To show how important is the form of the word in 
determining the date of its importation into the language, 
we may instance the two O.E. words ynce, ' inch,"* and yndse, 
or yntse, 'ounce,' which are both derived ultimately from the 
Latin uncia. Both show i-mutation, and must therefore 
both have been introduced before 600 or thereabouts. 
Which is the earlier form ? Obviously ynce, for the 
following reasons : Latin uncia, if borrowed in Gmc, would 
undoubtedly assume some such form as *unkjo-, which 
would normally become ynce in O.E. and inch in 
Mod. Eng. As a matter of fact, unkja occurs in Gothic, 
but this may well be an independent loan. In Romance 
speech uncia became (*ontsja), whence later (*ont]ia), with 
assibilation of c before i, j, similar to that which de- 
veloped also in English, and has given us our pronuncia- 
tion (int$). But the English process was far slower than 



246 THE OLD ENGLISH PERIOD 

the Romance change ; hence by the fifth or sixth centuries 
the latter language had already developed a sound not far 
removed from (t$), whereas O.E., although it had begun 
to front Jc before i and^", had not progressed so far. We 
may therefore regard the -ts- in O.E. yntse as an English 
approximation to the Brito-Romance sound in the word, 
the earlier loan ynce having at this period probably the 
form (*unci) with a front stop. 

In cases where Latin words contain no test sounds such 
as intervocalic voiceless stops, there cannot be absolute 
certainty as to whether they belong to the earliest Con- 
tinental class of loans, or whether they were acquired early 
in the English period, and even the fact that the same 
word exists in O.H.G. or O. Sax. does not necessarily 
settle the matter in favour of the former class, since each 
language may have adopted the words independently. 
On the other hand, words which retain the Latin inter- 
vocalic t, etc., might belong either to the Continental 
period or the late English, if their vowels are not such 
as are liable to early English sound changes. 

Enough has perhaps been said to show that the question 
of Latin words in O.E. is fraught with difficulties, and 
one that presents some problems which cannot be definitely 
solved. 

8. Latin Words chiefly from Ecclesiastical or Learned 
Sources, borrowed after Conversion of the English to 
Christianity. — After the introduction of the Christian 
religion, and with it Latin culture, into England, the 
vocabulary was further enriched by words both bearing 
directly upon the Church, its government and ideals, its 
officers, the functions of the ministers of religion and their 



CHRISTIANITY IN ENGLAND 247 

vestments, etc., and also by others expressing the circum- 
stances and objects connected with the everyday life of 
Christians both clerical and lay. The new culture affected 
the language of Englishmen in two ways : by introducing 
words direct from classical Latin, and by calling into 
existence fresh adaptations and combination of native 
words to express hitherto unknown objects and ideas. 

The Latin words which passed into English after the 
introduction of Christianity are chiefly from literary and 
not spoken popular Latin ; hence they had not undergone 
the characteric changes of the latter. Again, most of the 
characteristic English sound changes had already been 
carried out by the beginning of the seventh century, 
so that from the English side they underwent, as a rule, 
comparatively little change. Further, it is probable that 
during the Old English period these words remained, for 
the most part, the linguistic property of the clergy and 
learned classes ; they were derived from literary sources, 
and preserved, to a great extent, the form in which they 
were borrowed. 

A few examples of learned words are : Discipul, ' dis- 
ciple'; martyr; pcell, 'pallium'; papa, 'pope'; sdcerd, 
' priest,' from sacerdos. Words of more popular origin 
and use are: Abbod, 'abbot'; celmesse, 'alms,' from 
alimosina ; domne (applied to a Bishop or Archbishop) ; 
mcesse, ' mass,' from *messa, Lat. missa. 

Many native words were adapted to Christian uses. 
Such are : hdsl, applied to the Blessed Sacrament, but 
originally meaning ' sacrifice ' in general, Cf. Goth. 
hunsl ; scearn, ' the tonsure,' related to scieran, ' to cut ' ; 
an-buend and an-setl, 'hermit' and ' hermitage'; fidwian, 



248 THE OLD ENGLISH PERIOD 

' baptize ' = * hii-wihan, 6 consecrate ' ; fulluht and fidwiht, 
6 baptism," -wiht being probably associated in popular 
etymology with the word meaning creature ; godspellere, 
4 evangelist ^ husl-\egn, ' acolyte ' ; gela\iing, ' the Church ' 
— literally, those who have received the 'call' or 'in- 
vitation.' 

The Picardian form market, from Latin mercatum, 
occurs in the Laud MS. of the Chronicle under the 
year 963, but this text was written in the first quarter of 
the twelfth century. 

[In addition to the works by Kluge and Pogatscher, 
cited above, the reader should also consult The Influence of 
Christianity on the Vocabulary of Old English, Part L, by 
H. S. MacGillivray, Halle, 1902.] 

The Scandinavian Element. 

It is well known that the language of the invading 
Norsemen, usually known to us as the ' Danes," has left 
considerable traces upon the vocabulary both of the 
literary language and of that of the dialects of English. 
Although the process of the blending of the two languages 
was undoubtedly carried out during the O.E. period, it is 
not until the M.E. period that this linguistic element 
finds its way, to any considerable extent, into the written 
records so far as they have come down to us. The reason 
for this is that for a long time English and Scandinavian 
were spoken side by side by two separate communities in 
those districts which were settled by the Northmen. Not 
until the two races had amalgamated, and Norse had given 
way altogether to English, did many Scandinavian words 
become part and parcel of English speech. It is pointed 



EARLIEST LOANS FROM SCANDINAVIAN INVADERS 249 

out by Bjorkman, in the introductory remarks to his 
excellent book, Scandinavian Loan- Words in Middle 
English, Part I., Halle, 1900, that the words from this 
source found in O.E., which, indeed, are few 4 Jn number, 
and which have mostly died out by the M.E. period, 
refer for the most part to things connected with the life 
and institutions of the invaders, such as cnear, ' war-ship '; 
fi/lcian, 6 to collect ' ; ora, the name of a coin ; and so on. 
Those words and expressions which appear at a later date, 
on the other hand, reveal something very different from 
the superficial relations between the two peoples, such as 
the above words point to. The later words include several 
adverbs, pronouns, and other words which show a close 
and intimate connection between English and Scandinavian 
speakers. 

The fact that practically no prose literature of the early 
period has survived in any hut a West Saxon form no doubt 
also accounts to a certain extent for the paucity of Scandi- 
navian words actually recorded 'in O.E. itself. The list of 
these words given by Kluge, PauTs Grundr. 2 , p. 932, etc., 
includes many words whose^candinavian origin is doubtful. 
The close affinity of sounds and vocabulary between the 
two languages makes it in many cases practically im- 
possible to be certain whether the word in question is 
really a Norse loan-word or an original English word. 
The question of the linguistic tests of true Scandinavian 
words will fall to be discussed in the next chapter. 



CHAPTER XIII 
THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PERIOD 

A complete account of the various forms of English 
speech, which should trace the development of each and 
show their mutual relations, would be a most complicated 
task, and one which in the present state of knowledge 
would be impossible. 

The difficulty arises partly in the number of M.E. texts, 
and the great dialectal variety which they display ; partly 
also in the fact that the remains of O.E. outside the West 
Saxon dialect are so scanty. 

The modern dialects are not, as a rule, the repre- 
sentatives of the M.E. dialects, except in certain of their 
most pronounced features, such as the Northern (e or I, 
etc.), as contrasted with South and Midland (ou), which 
both represent Common O.E. a. Most of the peculiarities 
of the modern dialects are of quite recent development, 
and afford but little help in elucidating the problems of 
the M.E. period. It is quite possible, of course, that 
many features of the present-day dialects, which it is 
impossible to discover from the texts of the earlier period, 
may already have been developed, but could find no 
adequate expression in the spelling. On the other hand, 
there is no doubt whatever that the majority of the most 

250 



DIALECTAL DIVERSITY IN MIDDLE ENGLISH 251 

characteristic features of Middle Kentish and Middle 
Southern (from Somersetshire to Sussex) have completely 
vanished from the modern speech of those areas. The 
Middle English dialects, therefore, stand to a great extent 
isolated ; of some, we cannot watch the early develop- 
ment, owing to the loss or absence of records of the oldest 
period ; while there are others whose subsequent career we 
cannot trace, because they have perished. 

Towards the end of the fourteenth century there 
emerges, from among the many provincial forms which 
had hitherto been used for literary purposes, a dialect, 
chiefly Midland in character, but containing some elements 
at least of all the other chief dialectal types, which hence- 
forth serves as the exclusive form of speech used in 
literature, and from which Modern Standard English is 
descended. This, with certain variations, is the English 
of Chaucer, of Wycliff, and of Gower. 

The precise area in which the literary dialect arose is 
still disputed, but there can be little doubt that, whatever 
may have been its precise antecedents, it was a real living 
form of speech, not a literary concoction, and that the 
English of Chaucer is the flexible, racy speech of a class, if 
not of a province, most probably that of the upper strata 
of English educated society — the language at once of the 
nobles and officials of the Court, and of the scholars and 
divines of the University of Oxford. 

It is true that in a few cases the Modern Standard 
English form of a given word cannot be traced directly to 
that particular M.E. type which is found in Chaucer's 
language ; but, speaking generally, we may say that the 
literary English of to-day is the lineal representative of 



252 THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PERIOD 

the dialect in which Chaucer writes. This being the case, 
the most practical course for the student of the history of 
the English language is to consider M.E. as culminating 
in the dialect of literature as found in Chaucer, and to 
take that as the M.E. type from which he traces Modern 
English. 

But in order to understand, even approximately, the 
development of Chaucer's English from the older forms, 
the beginner must become acquainted with the chief 
general M.E. characteristics, of sound change, inflexional 
system, and vocabulary. 

He must, further, consider the main characteristic 
features of the principal M.E. dialectal types, in order 
that he may recognise their forms in Chaucer's language 
and in that of the modern period. 

General Authorities on the Middle English Period. 

So far there is no complete and minute M.E. Grammar, 
and we have largely to rely upon monographs of particular 
texts. The principal M.E. Grammar is that of Morsbach, 
Mittelenglische Grammatik, 1 Theil, Halle, 1896. This 
is minute, and deals with the phonology of all the 
dialects. So far as it goes, this is a most valuable book 
for the advanced student, but, unfortunately, it breaks off 
in the middle of a paragraph, without having dealt with 
the whole vowel system. In this work the texts and 
authorities of each dialect are enumerated, and the 
problems of accent and quantity are exhaustively treated. 
In the second volume of Kaluza's Historische Grammatik 
der Englischen Sprache, Berlin, 1901, the main features 
of M.E. are dealt with in a short space, and in a manner 



CHRONOLOGICAL AND DIALECTAL DIVISIONS 253 

which is practical and convenient for beginners, especially 
those whose main object is to trace the history of the 
standard language. Sound and suggestive, though difficult 
to use on account of lack of systematic arrangement, is 
Kluge's Geschichte d. Engl. Spr. in Paul's Grundriss. The 
development of M.E. sounds from O.E. is dealt with in 
Sweet's History of English Sounds (H.E.S.), Oxford, 1888, 
pp. 154-198; and the same writer's New English Grammar , 
Part I., Oxford, 1892, Shorter English Historical Grammar, 
and Primer of Historical English Grammar (the latter a 
masterpiece of concise and accurate statement), all give a 
short but clear account of the main characteristics of 
M.E. in their relation both to the earlier and the later 
forms of English. An exceedingly useful sketch of M.E. 
Grammar for beginners is also prefixed to Specimens of 
Early English— Part I., from 1150-1300 ; Part II., 1298- 
1393. 

Other general works and monographs dealing with specific 
texts will be referred to in the course of this chapter. 

Chronological Divisions of Middle English. 
We may adopt Sweet's divisions, which are : Transition 
O.E., 1100-1200; Early M.E., 1200-1300; Late M.E., 
1330-1400. 

Dialectal Divisions of Middle English. 

It is possible to distinguish four chief dialectal types, 
which correspond to the O.E. divisions, although within 
each of the original dialectal areas numerous sub-varieties 
are recorded in M.E. The principal dialect groups are : 

(1) Northern, descended from Old iY Northumbrian. By 
the beginning of the fourteenth century it is possible to 



254 THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PERIOD 

distinguish between Scots and Northern English, although 
the former name (M.E. Scotis) appears to have been 
applied only to Gaelic speech down to the sixteenth 
century. 

(2) Midland, which corresponds to the old dialects of 
Mercia and East Anglia. The Midland area reaches as far 
south as the Thames. 

(3) The Southern, or Saxon Dialects ; and 

(4) The Dialect of Kent. 

Texts representing the Chief Dialects. 

It will be unnecessary here to do more than enumerate 
a few of the chief M.E. texts, of which the date of the 
manuscript and the place in which it was written is well 
established. 

A. Transition Texts — East Midland. — A.S. Chronicle, 
Laud MS., from 1122-1154, probably written about 1154 
at Peterborough. Extracts from this are to be found in 
Skeafs Specimens, Part I. The whole text may be read 
either in Thorpe's Ed. of A.S. Chronicle (Rolls Series) or 
in Plummets Two Saxon Chronicles, Oxford, 1892. 

Southern. — Histoiy of the Holy Rood-tree, circa 1170, 
Ed. Napier, E.E.T.S., 1894. 

B. Early Middle English — Northern. — Metrical Psalter, 
Yorkshire, before 1300. Extracts ;in Specimens, Part II., 
Ed. Surtees Soc, 1843-1847 ; Cursor Mundi, circa 1300 ; 
Specimens, Part II. 

Midland. — The Ormidum, written in Lincolnshire in 
1200. Extracts occur in Sweet's First Middle English 
Primer and in Skeafs Specimens. The most recent com- 
plete edition is that of Holt, Oxford, 1878. 



REPRESENTATIVE MIDB1E ENGLISH TEXTS 255 

Southern. — Ancren Riwle (A.R.), Dorsetshire, circa 1225. 
Extracts in Sweet's Middle English Primer and the Speci- 
mens. In the latter book other Dorsetshire texts of about 
the same period, and perhaps by the same author, may be 
studied. The standard edition of A.R. is that of Morton, 
Camden Soc, 1852. 

Kentish. — Various Sermons and Homilies in the Kentish 
Dialect, from 1200-1250, are to be found in Skeat's 
Specimens, Part I. 

C. Late Middle English — Northern* — Prick of Conscience 
(Hampole), Yorks, before 1349 ; Specimens, Part II., Ed. 
Morris, E.E.T.S. 

Midland. — Alliterative Poems, Lancashire, circa 1360 ; 
Specimens, Ed. Morris, E.E.T.S., 1869; Earliest Prose 
Psalter, West Midland, 1375, Ed. Biilbring, E.E.T.S., 
1891. 

Southern. — St. Editha, Wilts, 1400, Ed. Horstmann, 
1883. 

Kentish. — Ayenbite of Inwyt, 1340 ; see Specimens, 
Part II., Ed. Morris, E.E.T.S., 1866. We have, un- 
fortunately, no Northern texts of this period earlier than 
the two mentioned in A above — that is to say, nothing 
to bridge the gulf of more than two hundred years, and 
no texts produced in Scotland till the Bruce, 1375. 

General Characteristics of Middle English compared with 
Old English. 

A. Middle English Orthography. — The changes in spell- 
ing which distinguish the period with which we are dealing 
with that which went before are of a twofold nature. 
There are, firstly, the changes introduced in an attempt 



256 THE MIDDLE &NGLISH PERIOD 

to express the changes Which were taking place in pro- 
nunciation ; and, secondly, those due to the application 
of an entirely different system of sound notation, which 
was in the main Norman French. The former class will 
be more fully treated in enumerating the M.E. sound 
changes. 

The influence of French spelling is present in various 
degrees even in very. early M.E. texts, and even before the 
Conquest. Thus u, instead of the English intervocalic/ 
to express a voiced sound, occurs in an eleventh-century 
manuscript. Later on u is universal in such a Southern 
text as A.R., although Northern texts retain/* much later 
even in French words. The Midland Orm writes serrfeun 
usually, but serruen only once (H.E.S., 602). 

The spelling of the Ormulum, which is so remarkably 
consistent and methodical as to call for special notice, 
shows only very slight touches of Norman influence, but is 
partly the English traditional spelling, with modifications 
introduced by the writer Orm for purposes of greater 
phonetic exactitude. 

As the knowledge of French and French documents 
became more and more widespread among educated 
Englishmen, the French inode of expressing sounds became 
fixed, so that, instead of* the orthography being English, 
slightly influenced by French, as in the case of some early 
M.E. manuscripts, that of the late M.E. period is princi- 
pally basally French, with a certain residue of traditional 
English spellings. 

In the South, where we find the largest proportion of 
Anglo-French loan-words in the early period, French 
orthography begins earlier t^an in the North and Mid- 



CHANGES IN SPELLING 257 

lands. French loan-words retain their regular French 
spelling, and this system is then transferred to English 
words containing sounds approximately the same as those 
occurring in French. Thus already in A.R. we find 
French c ( = s) transferred to English words, as in seldcene, 
' seldom-seen." 

The following is a list of some of the chief novelties in 
M.E. spelling ; many of them have survived in the English 
spelling of the present day : 

Vowels. — o written for O.E. u in the neighbourhood of 
n, m, v, w ; a purely graphic attempt to distinguish letters 
which resemble each other in shape : sone, ' son, O.E. sunu. 
The sound itself (u) remains during the M.E. period. 

u written for O.E. y when this sound is preserved, other- 
wise for A.-Fr. u, which had the sound of y (i.e., high- 
front-round) ; cf. wurchen, O.E. wyr'can. When long, the 
same sound is written ui (in the South), to represent 
O.E. y : huiren, ' hear, 1 O.E. hyran. 

ou for O.E. u, and for A.-Fr. (u) -sound : hous, ' house, 
O.E. hits ; court. This spelling is very rare for the short 
(u) -sound. 

ie occurs in Gower and other texts to express a long 
tense (e), as distinct from the slack (e), written e: hieren, 
4 hear,' O.E. (non-W.S.), heran. 

y is written for (I). It never expresses the rounded (y) 
in M.E. 

Consonants. — cli is written for O.E. c already in the 
middle of the twelfth century (cf. the so-called Kentish 
Gospels, for instance) : Chester, O.E. (Kentish, etc.) tester ; 
cheke, O.E. cede, ' cheek. 1 Medially cch or chch occur. 
-tch- is rare before the fifteenth century. 

17 



258 THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PERIOD 

gg is written for the O.E. eg : brigge, brugge, O.E. 
brybg, ' bridge." 1 The spelling -dg- for this sound is not 
common before the fifteenth century. 

j is written initially for the same sound, which only 
occurs in this position in French words : jugement, etc. 

The O.E. symbol 5, slightly modified in shape, is re- 
tained in M.E. to express the front-open voiced consonant : 
yuen, ' give,' O.E. giefan ; we^, ' way,' O.E. iveg. The use 
of y for this sound belongs to the later M.E. period. 

The symbol g is a new symbol imported by French 
scribes. Prior to the Conquest, 2 was the only form of the 
letter, and did duty for both back and front consonants. 
The new symbol appears first about the first quarter of the 
twelfth century. At first the scribes use the English symbol 
5 and the Continental g indiscriminately for either the 
back or the front sound. From the thirteenth century 
onwards, however, the distinction is usually consistently 
made, the modified form 3 of the old letter 3 being used 
for the latter, the new for the former sound. Orm makes 
the distinction most carefully, and further introduces a 
symbol of his own, a combination of the Continental g and 
English g, to express a back stop, in words like yod, etc. 

[Note. — This interesting and important discovery was 
made by Professor Napier. Cf. Academy, 1890, p. 188, 
and the reprint of the article in History of the Holy Rood- 
tree, E.E.T.S., 1894, p. 71. J 

git, the French symbol for a back stop before front 
vowels, is still retained in guest. In M.E. it is sometimes 
written in guod, ' good," and Mngue. 

gh is written for a back - open voiceless consonant, 
O.E. h : inogh, ' enough,' O.E. genoh. 



CHANGES IN PRONUNCIATION 259 

sch, ssch, sh, are written for O.E. sc, and less commonly 
ss and s: schip, ssip, jlesscli, jless, etc. 

th replaces ]? and 3 : thinken, etc., in Late M.E. 

qu replaces O.E. cw : queue, 'woman 1 (kwene), O.E. 
czvene ; queen, 'queen' (kwcn), O.E. cwen. 

c is used for (s) in French words, as at present in face, 
etc., and occasionally, as we have seen, in English words as 
well. 

u, and later v, are used medially, instead of O.E. f, to 
express the voiced sound : lauerd, O.E. hlaford, ' lord '; 
euel and evel, ' evil,' O.E. (Kentish) efel. In Southern texts, 
where O.E. f was voiced initially, u, v are written in that 
position: uor\, O.E. for\. In A.R. f is still written 
finally, to avoid confusion with the vowel, as in llf, ' life ' ; 
also before voiced consonants, as in hefde, i had/ O.E. 
hcefde. 

B. Middle English Sounds. — The quality of M.E. sounds 
is established partly from historical considerations of their 
origin and subsequent development, partly from the 
various phonetic attempts to render them made by the 
scribes, partly by the rhymes of the M.E. period. 

By the last means we are able, for instance, to show the 
existence of two long ' e '-sounds, although the M.E. spell- 
ing does not in all cases distinguish. Chaucer, a careful 
and accomplished maker of rhymes, never rhymes M.E. e, 
the result of a M.E. lengthening of O.E. e, as in her en, 
O.E. Mr an, with the other e inherited from O.E., as in 
heren, fc hear," O.E. heran. Further, we still distinguish 
between the sounds of the two words ' hear ' and ' bear.' 
There can be little doubt that in M.E. the sound in 
heren was a mid-front-tense, whereas that in ' heren , 

17—2 



260 THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PERIOD 

was mid-front-slack. This M.E. distinction is still 
further confirmed by the scribal distinction, already 
noted, of ie for the former class of words, and e for the 
latter. 

The quantity of vowels is established by the means just 
described, which are, however, even more conclusive in 
settling the quantity than they are in determining the 
precise quality of a vowel. 

For the quantities of early M.E. the Ormulum is in- 
valuable, since the writer invariably doubles the conso- 
nant after short vowels, or, in the few cases where this is 
not practicable, marks the short quantity thus : name, 
6 name,' etc. 

We may assume that when Orm does not double the 
consonant, the preceding vowel is long. Thus he dis- 
tinguishes between the singular Iamb, with long a, already 
in O.E., and the plural lammbre, where the combination of 
consonants (mbr) has prevented lengthening. 

Marks to show that a vowel is long are rare in M.E., 
but the doubling of vowels for this purpose, although 
not consistently practised in early M.E., is very common, 
and fairly regularly carried out in later M.E., as in 
Chaucer's stoon, ' stone '; heeth, ' heath,'' etc. 

Qualitative Sound Changes in Middle English. 

1. O.E. ti, which includes both original a and a length- 
ened from a during the O.E. period, before -Id, -mb, -nd, 
hand, lamb, and Anglian aid (M.E. lomb, hond, old), is 
rounded to (o) in the South and Midlands : O.E. ham, 
'home,' M.E. horn; O.E. stir, 'sore/ M.E. sor, etc. 

In the North, except before I + another consonant, 



O.E. A ROUNDED IN SOUTH, FRONTED IN NORTH 261 

a is gradually fronted to e through intermediate stage 
of cc. This sound is written a in the North of England, 
but in Scotland often ai. Its front character can be 
shown from the M.E. rhymes, and also from the Mod. 
Scots and Northern Eng. dialect forms, which show 
(e, la), etc. 

The Southern and Midland rounding must have begun 
very early, since no N.-Fr. word with a, such as dame, 
6 lady, 1 fame, etc., ever shows any trace of the process. 
Therefore, before the period of the earliest loan-words from 
Norman sources, O.E. a and Fr. a were already distinct. 
The early manuscripts are by no means consistent in 
writing o for the old a sound. The Kentish Homilies 
(MS. Vespas., A. 22, before 1150) occasionally writes 6 by 
the side of the usual a. The Laud MS. of the Chronicle 
has one example, more, under the year 1137 (cf. Skeat's 
Specimens, I., p. 11, 1. 42). This manuscript was probably 
written after the year 1154. Orm (1200), though such 
a careful orthographist, writes a in all cases, never o. 
This probably indicates that the change had not gone 
far enough in his dialect, to be recognisable as a new 
sound. Genesis and Exodus, also E. Midi, fifty years 
later, has plenty of 6 spellings. The so-called Lambeth 
Homilies (before 1200) has no o, but always a; while the 
collection of Homilies of the same date in Trinity College, 
Cambridge, have 6 universally, and apparently no as. 
Ancren Riwle (1225) has 6, oa in hundreds of cases, 
a occurring only once in an unequivocal word, wat ; 
lates, from O.N. lot, Icete, is thus written five times. 
[On this text, cf. Ostermann, Bonner Beitr., 1905.] 
It is therefore clear that the rounding of a had been 



262 THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PERIOD 

carried out in the South and in some Midland dialects 
by the second half of the twelfth century, even although 
the scribes do not consistently express this in their 
spellings. On the other hand, it can be proved by an 
examination of the rhymes of Barbour's B?~uce (1375) that 
by that date the Northern fronting was fully complete. 
ansitier — mar, O.E. mara, ' more ' (Book I., 437, 438) ; war, 
6 was, 1 O.E. (Northern) weron, rhymes to mar (Book II., 
59, 60) ; war to rair, ' roar,' O.E. raran (Book IV., 422, 
423). The front quality of the vowel in war, in spite of 
the spelling, is proved by the rhyme of wer, with different 
spelling, to French maner (Book IV., 7, 8), and by that 
of ere, O.E. cer, to were (Book IV., 402, 403). The vowel 
in all these words is certainly front, either (ie) or (l), or 
even possibly (e), which is suggested by the rhyme neir, 
' near,' maneir (Book IV., 377, 378j. In the sixteenth 
century the rhyme dreme, ' dream, 1 O.E. dream, with hdme, 
is noted by Professor Gregory Smith in Specimens of 
Middle Scots, p. xx ; cf. also ibid., p. 174, lines 13, 14, in a 
poem by Sir David Lindsay. 

2. O.E. ce (1), when original, was very early in the O.E. 
period raised to e in all dialects but W. Saxon. This 
sound is represented in the earliest M.E. (Southern) texts 
by the spellings oe or ea, the levelling of ce with the old 
long diphthong having already taken place in O.E. Later 
on this sound seems to disappear altogether, even in 
Southern, the non-Saxon e penetrating from the other 
dialects. 

O.E. ce (2), which was the i-mutation of a, survives, in 
all dialects but Kentish, throughout the O.E. period. In 
M.E. it was gradually raised to (e), written ce, ea, ee. 



TREATMENT OF O IN NORTHERN DIALECTS 263 

In Mod. Eng. this sound, in common with Anglian e, has 
become (J), but its origin is often expressed by the spelling 
ea, as in heath, O.E. hce\, from *ha]>i, as distinguished 
from deed, from non-W.S. did, earlier deed, with 
original ce. This M.E. (c) was not raised to (I) in Mod. 
Eng. until much later than the M.E. tense sound, and is 
still preserved as (g), etc., in Irish English (cfpp. 320, 321). 
3. O.E. o, often written oo in M.E., was pronounced 
with increased rounding, and by the period of Chaucer 
had probably reached a sound closely resembling Swedish 
6, which to the ear is almost like u. In the sixteenth 
century the full (u) sound was developed. In the North 
O.E. o had a different development, as is shown by such 
rhymes in Northern Eng. and Scotch texts asjvrtone — sone, 
'soon 1 {Pricke of Consc., 1273-1274, circa .1340) ; auen- 
ture—forfure, 'perished,' O.E. forfor [Bruce, Book X., 
528, 529) ; bind— rude (Schir W. Wallace, 1488, Book II., 
91, 92). In the same poem, Book II., we fmdifude, 'food,' 
O.E. foda (308), hind (311), gud (312), all rhyming with 
conclud (314). There are numerous examples of such 
rhymes in Scotch texts. Here we find, then, O.E. o 
written o, u, oi, etc., rhyming with French u (y), which is 
also spelled in exactly the same ways as the former sound. 
The inference is that in Northern Eng. and Scotch, by the 
fourteenth century, at any rate, the two sounds were felt as 
identical. Whatever may have been the precise sound 
intended, it is clear that its acoustic effect was approxi- 
mately that of a high-front-round vowel, or perhaps a 
high-mixed-round, that it was the ancestor of the various 
sounds representing O.E. 6, which we find in the modern 
dialects of Scotland and the North of England, and that 



264 THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PERIOD 

it evidently did not pass through the (u) stage which is 
universal in the South and Midlands. 

4. O.E. y is unrounded everywhere but in the South 
to i, which shares the same development as original i, and 
becomes (ai) in Mod. Eng. In the South the y sound is 
preserved, and is written u or ui. The Southern forms 
have died out, with the exception of ( bruise ' (bruz), 
O.E. brysan, which has preserved the characteristic M.E. 
Sthn. spelling. It must be noted that y became e in 
Kentish already in the middle of the ninth century, and 
this sound, together with all other O.E. e\ is preserved 
in M.E. in that dialect. 

5. O.E. e, i, and u were preserved unaltered, unless 
affected by a M.E. process of shortening (see p. 270, etc.), 
so far as the evidence goes, during the whole M.E. period, 
(e) was raised to (I) in the early Modern period ; u was 
diphthongized in the South and Midlands about the same 
time, to a sound which subsequently became (au). The 
Norman spelling ou to express u has been retained, and is 
now popularly regarded as the natural symbol of the 
modern diphthong. (I) was diphthongized to (ai) in the 
sixteenth century, and from it (ai) has developed, with 
slight variations, in all dialects. 

The Short Vowels. — With the exception of O.E. a, these 
undergo no qualitative change during the M.E. period. 

6. O.E. ce appears already in O.E., as e in Kentish, and 
to a certain extent in Mercian. In W. Sax. and North- 
umbrian ce is preserved. In M.E., Southern texts, espe- 
cially Kentish, preserve e, but otherwise a is the usual 
form. Chaucer has fader, ' father,' O.E. fa?der ; water, 



LOSS OF OLD DIPHTHONGS IN M.E. 265 

In the later language the £-forms disappear altogether. 
In combination with 5, e forms in Kentish a diphthong, 
written ei. 

Those dialects which have a combine this sound into the 
diphthong ai with the following 3, as in dai. Sometimes i, 
sometimes 3 is written. In early texts the O.E. distinction 
between the sing, and pi. of such words as dceg, pi. dagas, 
etc., is preserved : dai, dawes, etc. (on change of O.E. g 
to w, see p. 274 below). Chaucer has dai, day, dayes, etc., 
with the 3 of the sing, generalized throughout. On the 
other hand, he has the vb. dawen, ' dawn, 1 from O.E. 
dagian, earlier *dagqjan. Apparently, the diphthongs ei 
ai were scarcely distinguishable in M.E. The vowel in 
wei, 6 way, 1 rein, ' rain, 1 O.E. weg, regn, has had precisely 
the same development as that in dai, O.E. dceg, and 
wain, O.E. wcegn, 6 wain. 1 

O.E. a when preserved, is, of course, indistinguishable 
from ce in M.E. 

The O.E. Diphthongs. — Such of these as survive the 
various O.E. combinative factors in the different dialects, 
which tend to monophthongize them, are completely 
monophthongized in the M.E. period, except in Kentish, 
where the spellings dyath, ' death, 1 O.E. deap, \yef, ' thief, 1 
O.E. \eof, seem to imply a diphthongal pronunciation. 
But with the dying out of the Kentish dialect all trace 
of the original diphthongs, as such, disappears. 

Otherwise, O.E. ea is monophthongized to (se) in early 
M.E., and eb to (e). The diphthongal spellings, are, how- 
ever, common in early texts, in spite of the undoubted 
change of sound. Similarly, the short diphthongs ea 
and eo become (ae) and (e) respectively. This is proved 



266 THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PERIOD 

by the fact that ea, eo are not infrequently written for 
old ce, e, and conversely ; while the original short as and e 
are often expressed by ea and eo respectively. In fact, in 
early texts ea is a regular symbol for, and proves the 
existence of, the soundy (se). This (aV), representing the 
original diphthongs, was, together with original se, 
raised to (t). The new (e) sound was completely levelled 
under original O.E. e, and the original O.E. e, when 
preserved short, was levelled under the new e. 

Mod. Eng. weald, side by side with wold, appears to 
represent the Saxon weald, E.M.E. wceld, whence weld (e), 
Early Mod. (weld). Wold is, of course, the old Anglian 
wald. The early Middle Kentish chold, 6 cold, 1 is ap- 
parently a mixture of Southern casld, choeld, and Anglian 
cdld, cold. 

The Development of New Diphthongs in Middle English. 

The various diphthongs which came into existence 
during the M.E. period are the result either of the 
vocalizing of O.E. g (front-open voice consonant) after 
a preceding oe or e, as has been already indicated above, 
as in del, dai, rein, etc. ; of the development of a front 
vowel glide before fronted h, as in heih, ' high," 1 O.Angl. 
heh, etc. ; or the development of a back vowel glide 
between a back vowel and a back-open consonant, as in 
douhter, O.E. dohter ; inouh, 'enough,'' O.E. genoh, plouh, 
6 plough, 1 O.E. ploh. In late O.E. the last two words 
become inuh and pluh respectively, by the over-rounding 
and raising of (6) to (u) through the influence of the 
second element of the diphthong, and the subsequent 
contraction of (uu) to (u). The literary English (plan) 



THE NEW DIPHTHONGS 267 

and the archaic (inaa) ' enow ' are the result, not of the 
old nom., which in Late O.E. had h, but of the oblique 
cases, where the voice sound was retained — O.E. genoge, 
ploges. This O.E. g became w in M.E. — inowe, plowes, 
etc., where ou or ozv had the same sound as in the Nom. 
The sometime existence of the actual diphthong (ou) is 
confirmed by the Modern dialect form (ploh), in which 
the second element has been lost. The standard English 
(znaf), ' enough, 1 represents the old nom. ; and so do the 
dialect forms (pluh, pluf, inuh), etc. The O.E. combina- 
tion ag- before vowels produces M.E. aw-au (cf. O.E. 
dragan, M.E. drawen). 

In O.E. qf- the consonant is sometimes weakened to a 
vowel, thus forming the second element of a diphthong — 
O.E. hafoc, M.E. hauk ; and the same thing may happen 
to O.E. ef-, as in M.E. eute, 6 newt,' O.E. efete. 

The combination au- in Norman French words was 
pronounced (aun) by some speakers, presumably in imita- 
tion of the original nasal vowel. Such spellings as daun- 
gerous, aungel, ' angel,"* are frequent, and they survive in 
many cases in Mod. Eng. — e.g., haunt, haunch, aunt, 
iaundice, laundry, etc. Here the fluctuation of the Mod. 
Eng. pronunciation between (5) and (a) makes it evident 
that two types, one (au) and the other (aim), existed 
in M.E. The Mod. Eng. (hont$, dzondis, londH), etc., go 
back to M.E. (hauntj, dzaundis), etc. ; while the Mod. 
Eng. pronunciations (hantj, dzandis, ant), etc., are 
descended from M.E. forms without diphthongization. 
In the same way Mod. Eng. al-, pronounced (5l-), also 
presupposes an earlier (aul-), as in Mod. Eng. (si, solt, 
b5l) = ' all," ' salt, 1 ' bawl, 1 from (aul, sault, baul). This is 



268 THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PERIOD 

apparently the result of the development of a parasitic (u) 
between a and the following I. 

Quantitative Vowel Changes in Middle English. 
1. Lengthening of Or iginal Short Vowels. 

(a) Early Lengthening before Consonantal Combinations. 
— As we have seen, all short vowels were lengthened in 
late O.E. before certain consonantal combinations. Un- 
less conditions arise to shorten these vowels again, their 
length is preserved in M.E. In the case of the length- 
ened a before -Id, mb, nd, ng, the survival of the new 
quantity is made certain by the spellings hond (Orm hand), 
strong (Orm Strang), etc., which show that the lengthened 
a is rounded to o together with original O.E. a, in ham, 
M.E. hom, etc. In other cases we have to depend upon 
Orm's spellings (ante, p. 260), the occasional marks of 
length in the manuscripts, rhymes of the new long vowels 
with original longs, and the later history of the words 
in English. Thus from the latter point of view Mod. 
~Eng.Jlnd (faind) field (fild), hound (haund), can only be 
derived from M.E. types with the long vowels l, e, and u 
respectively. Orm's spellings, findenn, feld, hund, corro- 
borate the assumption of the existence of such types, 
as do the other M.E. spellings, field (e), hound (u), which 
have survived to the present day. 

In certain words, such as hand, lamb, etc., where we 
should expect a M.E. lengthening, on account of the 
presence of the combinations -mb, -nd, etc., the Mod. 
Eng. forms nevertheless presuppose M.E. forms with a 
short vowel. In these cases we must assume that both 



VOWEL-LENGTHENING IN OPEN SYLLABLES 269 

long and short forms existed in M.E., the latter types pro- 
duced by inflexion. (On this point see pp. 271-273 below.) 

(b) Later Lengthening of Vowels in an Open Syllable. — 
By the first half of the thirteenth century, the typical 
M.E. lengthening of the vowel a, as, e, o in open syllables 
was complete, and had taken place in all dialects. 

This is shown by the frequent rhyming of original short 
vowels in this position, with original longs : swete — eftgete, 
O.E. swete, eafigete ; ore — vorlore(n), O.E. ar, forloren 
[cf. Morsbach, M.E. Gr., p. 86]. Such rhymes at least 
prove agreement in quantity, if not in the quality of the 
vowels. 

Again, already in Orm we find faderr, ' father, 1 O.E. 
feeder, and waterr, O.E. webter, with (a) ; etenn, i eat,' 
O.E. etan; chele, 'cold, 1 O.E. (non-W.S.) dele, both 
with (£) ; chosenn, p.p. of chesenn, ' choose, 1 O.E. coren, 
(Onus p.p. has s on the analogy of the inf. and pres. 
indie.) ; hope, O.E. hopu, both with (5). The Mod. Eng. 
spelling ' eat ' implies a long slack (i) — at any rate down 
to the sixteenth century, when the corresponding tense 
sound was written ee, and was raised to (I). The length- 
ened o must also have had a different sound in M.E. from 
the original o. The latter became (u) in the sixteenth 
century; the JjaHer was still (5), and was later, in the seven- 
teenth century, raised to (o). (See below, pp. 323, 324, 
on development of the two o-sounds in the sixteenth and 
seventeenth centuries.) The sounds in Mod. Eng. water 
and father (5 and a) do not represent the normal inde- 
pendent development of this M.E. a. The vowel in water 
is influenced by the w, and that in father is from a M.E. 
doublet with a short vowel. (See below, pp. 271 and 317.) 



270 THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PERIOD 

M.E. a, whether due to lengthening of older a, or 
whether it be a N. Fr. a, develops in standard Mod. Eng. 
into the diphthong (ri), with the same sound as the name 
of the first letter of the alphabet. Thus O.E. nama, 
M.E. name, Mod. Eng. (nam) ; N. Fr. dame, Mod. Eng. 
dam. The dialectal (faiSar or feftar) exactly represent 
MM fader, so far as the long vowel is concerned. 

2. Vowel Shortening in Middle English. 

The chief factor of vowel shortening in M.E. is the 
presence of a long or double consonant, or a group of 
consonants, immediately after the vowel. 

From the above statement, those consonant groups 
which, as we have seen (ante, p. 235), tend to lengthen 
a short vowel, must, of course, be excepted. 

It is immaterial whether the shortening group occurs in 
the body of a simple word or arises in composition, pro- 
vided that the combination existed before the shortening 
process began. Examples : 

A. Before double consonants : 

1. Mette, ' met, 1 O.E. mette, from *met-de, from metede. 

B. Before other consonant groups : 

1. Two stops: keppte, 'kept,' O.E. cepte ; sleppte, 
6 slept, 1 O.E. slepte. 

%. Stop + divided, or nasal: Utmost, O.E. Utmest ; little, 
O.E. lytle ; chappmenn, O.E. ceapmenn. 

3. Stop + open cons.: depthe, O.E. *dep\u or *deop\u; 
Edtvard, O.E. Eadward. 

4. Open cons. + stop : soffte, 'soft, 1 O.E. softe ; wissdom, 
O.E. wisdom ; sohhte, O.E. sohte, ' sought. 1 



SHORTENING OF OLD LONG VOWELS 271 

5. Open cons. -+• divided or nasal cons. : gosling, dimin. 
oigos; deffles, 'devils,' O.E. deofol; wimman, from wifmann. 

6. Open cons. + open cons, or h : huswif, Mod. Eng. 
(hazif) ; goshauk, O.E. goshqfoc. 

7. Nasal cons. + stop : Jlemmde, ' put to flight," O.E. 
(Angl.) flemde. 

8. Divided or nasal cons. + open cons. : hallghenn, 
'hallow,' later M.E. halwen; fillthe, 'filth; O.E. fyty\ 
monthe, ' month; O.E. mona\ ; obi. cases, rnon)>e, etc. 

9. Nasal + divided cons. : clennlike, O.E. clcenllce. 
[Note. — The words with doubled consonants above are 

Orm's spelling, which proves the preceding vowels to be 
short.] 

It will be observed that under the conditions enumerated 
not only are original O.E. long vowels shortened, but also 
that the new (M.E.) long vowels, developed in open 
syllables, do not arise here, in close syllables. 

The occurrence in the declension, conjugation, or other 
inflection of a word of both open and close syllables is 
of great importance for the subsequent history of the 
language. In this way doublets arose of the same word, 
one with a long, the other with a short. Thus the nouns 
fader and water were long, but in the inflected forms the 
combinations -dr-, -tr- arose by the syncope of the e of 
the second syllable. The genitives were fadres, watres. 
Similarly, words which had original long vowels under- 
went shortening in inflection as a result of syncope. 
Thus devel in nom. form, O.E. deofol, had pi. devles 
(cf. Orm's dejfles above) ; from this shortened type, which 
gave rise to a new nom., Mod. Eng. (dtvil) is derived. 

Shortening was apparently normal before -st and -sch (j), 



272 THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PERIOD 

O.E sc. Words with original long vowels before these 
combinations show, however, some fluctuation of quantity 
in M.E. Thus O.E. breost became M.E. brest, whence 
brest. Brest, however, is also found, and this type is 
probably due to the inflected forms, where the syllable 
division was bre-stess, etc. Modern dialect forms, such as 
(brist, brest), also exist (cf. also ' priest J M.E. pre-stes). 
In the same way Standard Mod. ~Eng.fiesh goes back to a 
type (flej) in M.E. But the M.E. form with the long 
vowel (Orm ha&jlcesh) must be due to the syllable division 
of Gen. fioe-shes, etc. 

The Late O.E. lengthenings before -nd, -mb, etc, are 
also liable to show short forms in Standard Mod. Eng. 
In many cases here, too, doublets arose in inflection, since 
the lengthening either never took place or was got rid of 
before a third consonant. Thus Mod. Eng. lamb, compared 
with M.E. lomb, clearly goes back to a M.E. type with a 
short vowel, such as occurs in the plural Icimbre. Mod. Eng. 
hand (haend) perhaps arose from such compounds as hand- 
ful. Mod. Eng. friend (frend), by the side of M.E./mwZ, 
from O.E. freond, is from a shortened M.E. type, which 
arose, perhaps, in the compound frendschipe. The Scotch 
dialects preserve the representative of the long M.E. type 
here, as does Standard English also in fiend (find), M.E. 
fend, O.E. feond. Mod. Eng. child — children (tjaild — 
t$7*ldr3n) preserve the normal interchange of long and 
short seen in Orm's child, pi. chilldre. There are some 
short forms in Mod. Eng. which it is difficult to account 
for, unless we assume that shortening could take place 
within the longer breath group or sentence under the 
same conditions as those which caused it in the inflected 



MODERN EQUIVALENTS OF M.E. DOUBLETS 273 

word or compound. Such are land (laend) compared with 
M.E. lond, Orm land; and band (baend) compared with 
bo?id. The latter represents a much later shortening of 
M.E. bond, O.E. band, similar to that which has taken 
place also in long, M.E. long; strong, M.E. strong. 
Against the latter form Standard English has hang, sang 
(haerj, saeij), etc. 

In most cases where O.E. short vowels were lengthened 
and O.E. longs shortened, the possibility of doublets 
existed from the inflectional or other conditions of M.E. 
In a vast number of cases, by comparing Standard English 
with the Modern dialects, it will be seen that both long 
and short forms have been perpetuated in modern speech. 

The original rise of the doublets had nothing to do 
with dialectal idiosyncrasy, but the subsequent generaliza- 
tion of the long or short type, as the only form in use, 
depends upon the speech habit of the particular com- 
munity. As we have seen, Standard English is by no 
means consistent in this respect, but uses now the 
descendant of a M.E. long, now of a short vowel. 

The best general accounts of the quantitative and 
qualitative vowel changes in M.E. are to be found in 
Sweet's H.E.S. and Morsbach's M.E. Gr. The latter is 
particularly elaborate, though as regards the qualitative 
vowel changes it is unfortunately still awaiting completion. 

The Treatment of the Old English Consonants in Middle 
English. 

1. The Back Consonants. — O.E. g remained as a back 
stop initially before original back vowels and before 
consonants. Orm, as we have seen (p. 258), invented a 

18 



274 THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PERIOD 

special symbol to express this sound. Non-initially, O.E. 
g was an open voiced consonant, which in M.E. acquired 
considerable lip modification, together with a weakening 
of the back consonantal element, the tongue being lowered 
to a vowel position. The result is the Mod. Eng. zo, in 
words like draw, M.E. drawen, O.E. dragan. Orm 
writes the O.E. symbol 3 followed by h for this sound, 
implying probably that the back element still predominated 
in his pronunciation. Medially and finally M.E. w com- 
bined with the preceding vowel to form a diphthong. 

O.E. c remained as a back stop in all positions. The O.E. 
en- in cnazcaii) etc., remained in the Standard pronuncia- 
tion down to the sixteenth or early seventeenth century. 

O.E. h, a voiceless back consonant, medially between 
before or after back vowels, remained as such in M.E. 
The same tendency to lip modify h existed as in the case 
of the voiced sound, the result in the case of h, however, 
being the development of a lip-teeth (f) sound, as in 
Mod. Eng. tough (taf), O.E. toll. This is the normal 
development in Standard English and in many dialects. 

In the Northern dialects the old back -open voiceless 
consonant remains to this day, as in Scotch (pluh), etc. 
Standard (p\au) is, as we have seen, a doublet, formed 
from the oblique cases which had g in O.E. and w in M.E. 

Before t, h also became (f) in M.E., h?'qfie, O.E. brohte 
occurs in Lagomon, while the Modern dialects have forms 
like braft, ; brought , (in Cornwall), and thoft, ' thought,' in 
Kent, Devon, and Cornwall. For other examples see 
Wright, Dialect Gr., § 359. The more usual development 
in this position, however, seems to have been either the 
voicing of A, in which case it formed the second element 



BACK AND FRONT CONSONANTS 275 

(u) of a diphthong, as in the types from which Standard 
English (data, brot, ]>5t), etc., sprang, or the preservation 
of the back-open voiceless consonant unchanged, as in Sc. 
(j?oht), etc. 

O.E. hzo was apparently preserved as a voiceless w in 
the Lower Midlands and South ; in the North and part of 
the Midlands the back element was strongly consonantal. 
This is expressed in Northern texts by the spelling qu, as in 
quale, ' whale,"* O.E. hwcel ; quit, ' wheat, 1 O.E. liwcete, etc. 
The pronunciation (kw) is apparently unknown in the 
Modern dialects, and probably never developed. 

Initially before vowels h remains in M.E. as a rule, though 
it is very early lost in the neuter pronoun hit, which already 
in Orm is tit. Modern Scotch still preserves the strong 
form hit, which is, indeed, the only form in the Sc. dialects. 

The Front Consonants. — The O.E. front stops c and eg 
were fully assibilated to (tj) and (dz) early in the M.E. 
period. The methods of representing these sounds have 
already been described (ante, pp. 257, 258). For the former, 
the M.E. spelling eh, later tch, are conclusive, but for the 
latter the M.E. spellings gg are of doubtful significance, 
being also used for the stop, as in the Scand. legges, i legs. 1 
We have therefore to rely chiefly on the evidence of the 
Modern dialects to establish the existence of the (dz) sound 
in M.E. Unlike ch (tj), (dz), with the exception of one or 
two much-discussed words, never occurs initially in English 
words, though common in words of French origin, where 
it is usually written^' in Mod. Eng., as in judge, joy, jest, etc. 

The development of c and eg in M.E. and Mod. Eng. 
presents much difficulty, since in many cases where we 
should expect (t$ and dz) we get instead back stops — click 

18—2 



276 THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PERIOD 

by the side of ditch, flick by the side of flitch, seg by the 
side of sedge, rig by the side of ridge, and so on. 

The orthodox view is that in the North, O.E. c and eg 
were not as fully fronted as in the South, and that in M.E., 
or perhaps earlier, instead of developing into the full assi- 
bilated sounds, they were unfronted and became back 
stops. Thus words like seg, brig, and flick are looked upon 
as typically Northern forms, like sedge, bridge^ flitch as 
normal Southern products. 

Unfortunately, this theory, simple as it looks, will 
not bear investigation. It is true that M.E. texts and 
Modern dialects have, on the whole, more (-k and -g) 
and fewer (t$ and dz) forms in the Northern, while the 
proportions are reversed in the Southern ; but numerous 
assibilated forms actually do occur in the Northern, and 
many forms with back stops in the Southern, which on 
the ordinary theory can only be accounted for by the 
assumption of a system of wholesale borrowing. Some of 
the Southern A>forms, such as seek, compared with be-seech, 
are admittedly due to the second and third person singular : 
O.E. secst, sec\, M.E. sekst, sek\ in the Southern, where s 
and J? have unfronted c ; others may be due to Scandina- 
vian influence, though this cannot be invoked in the case 
of dialects which never had direct contact with Scandina- 
vian speech. On the other hand, the occurrence of (t$ and 
dz) forms in Northern dialects would seem to disprove the 
assertion that the O.E. front stops were not fully fronted 
in the North. 

Fleck or flick, 'flitch, 1 in Somerset, Wilts, Hants, and 
Isle of Wight ; seg, ' sedge,' in Gloucester, and, on the 
other hand, midge in Northumberland, Cumberland, West- 



THE PUZZLE OF THE INITIAL < PALATALS 5 277 

morland, Durham, and East Yorks ; cletch, dutch, 6 brood 
of chickens/ in Northumberland, Durham, North Yorks, 
are troublesome forms to explain on the received theory. 
None of the attempted explanations of these facts are 
wholly satisfactory, but some are less so than others. 

Initial A; representing O.E. c, as in kettle, O.E. cietel, 
betel; Jcirk, O.E. cyrce, etc., are universally supposed to be 
of Scandinavian origin. The A,'-forms are well established 
in M.E., though the normal English chetel, and of course 
chirche, etc., also occur, the former being comparatively 
rare. M.E. caf, 'chaff,' compared with O.E. (W. Sax.) 
ceaf, is explainable as due to the analogy of pi. O.E. cafu. 

O.E. g initially offers further difficulties. Before e it 
normally appears written as 3, y, yh, etc., in M.E., without 
change of sound. Thus : for-^ete{ri), yete(?i) ' forget '; 
^elle(n), yelle(n), 'yell'; 3elpe(n) ; yelpe(n) 'boast'; ^ere, 
yere, etc., ' year,' and so on. 

Before i, 3 is often lost in M.E., and in some words the 
Modern Standard language and the dialects show the same 
loss quite regularly; thus O.E. gif, 'if, 1 M.E. if; O.E. 
gicel, M.E. ikyl, etc., Eng. ic-icle, O.E. giccan, M.E. 
icching, icche(n), Mod. Eng. itch; also in the prefix g^-, 
M.E. i-cume, ' come,' p.p. Mod. Eng. ' yclept J hand-i-zvork, 
O.E. hand-^-weorc. M.E. also has ylde, ' guild,' ym-ston, 
' gem,' O.E. gim-stan. 

But M.E. has far more cases of yif, pm, etc., and, what 
is still more difficult to explain, many with g. The ap- 
pearance of g- is equally difficult to understand whether it 
occur before i, where we should expect to find it lost 
altogether, or before e, where we should expect M.E. 3, y, 
Mod. Eng. y. Here, apparently, we have the strange 



278 THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PERIOD 

phenomenon of a front-open consonant becoming a back 
stop. The words in which this occurs in Standard English 
are: give, O.E. giefan,gefan; gift; get, O.JZ.-gietcm, getan; 
guest (with Norm. Fr. spelling gu-), O.E. giest, gest ; begin, 
O.E. be-ginnan. To these may be added such Modern 
dialect forms as gif, ' if, 1 gllpie, ' a young spark,' related to 
O.E. gielpan, ' boast," and one or two others of more 
doubtful origin. 

Now the back stop is established for M.E. in each of 
these words, since spellings with g occur, often by the side 
of those with 3 or y, in texts from every part of the country, 
and Orm uses his new symbol for the back stop once at least, 
in glifen (pret. pi.). Further, the evidence of the Modern 
dialects shows that in all cases two, in a few three, M.E. 
types must have existed — one with g, one with y, one with 
the initial consonant lost. For instance, give, meaning 
6 give way, 1 i thaw," is found, apparently, in Norfolk, Surrey, 
Kent, and Somerset ; yeave, verb, with same meaning, and 
yeavey, adjective, though now obsolete, existed a hundred 
years ago in Devon, and were still preserved even later in 
the English dialect of a West-Country colony in Wexford ; 
eave, (h)eave, 'to thaw, 1 'grow moist, 1 is found in West 
Somerset, Cornwall, and Dorset. 

The modern forms are given here to supplement and 
confirm the evidence for the existence of three types in 
M.E. What is the explanation of the apparent triple 
mode of treatment of the same original sound in the same 
dialects ? Clearly, we do not assert that we have here an 
6 exception ' to the ordinary laws of sound change in 
English. Either the three forms arose under different 
conditions which we have failed to discriminate, or the 
6 anomalous ' forms are due to some external influence. 



MODERN FORMS WITH G- > O.E. g- 279 

As usual in cases of great difficulty, the influence of the 
Scandinavian settlers has been called in to account for 
the forms with stops — give, etc. It is quite possible, of 
course, that in districts where Norse was spoken side by 
side with English, and where people knew both English 
giefan or gefan, and Norse geva, English speakers might, 
when speaking their own language, substitute the initial 
consonant which they used in addressing the foreigners : this 
is possible, but it is not very likely to have taken place in 
such a common word. Moreover, the widespread distribu- 
tion of the g- forms, which exist even in M.E. in all 
dialects, makes it impossible to account for them, in all 
cases, on the hypothesis of Scandinavian influence. In 
such a word as begin we might attribute the g to the pret. 
and p.p. O.E. began, begunnon, begunnen, and this is prob- 
ably the right explanation of that form. 

On the other hand, it is possible that in give we have a 
perfectly normal English development of a stop under con- 
ditions of strong stress, whereas with weak stress the open 
consonant remained. It is to be observed that it is only 
those O.E. g's which represent original Gmc. g which 
are stopped in M.E. and the Modern dialects; those which 
represent Gmc. j, as in O.E. gear, never become g, but 
remain as y, or disappear altogether. This may imply 
that O.E. g had two different pronunciations in O.E., 
according to its origin. If this were not the case, it is a 
strange coincidence that there should not be some examples 
of g = Gmc. j being stopped in subsequent times. This 
whole question isdiscussed at length in an article by the pre- 
sent writer in Otia Merseiana, vol. ii., History of O.E. g in 
the Middle and Modern English Dialects, in which examples 
are given of the distribution of each of the three forms 



280 



THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PERIOD 



in more than fifty M.E. texts and all the chief Modern 
dialects. 

O.E./* and s were pronounced as voiced sounds in the 
South, especially in Kent in M.E., as is shown by the 
spelling uader, 'father, 1 zechen, ' seek. 1 This pronunciation 
still survives in the Modern Southern dialects, and Standard 
English vat, O.E. feet (cf. wine fat in New Testament), 
and vixen, OM.fyxen, are isolated examples of forms from 
a Southern dialect. 



Summary of Dialectal Differences. 

We may summarize the chief characteristic differences 
of dialectal treatment of the O.E. vowels. 

In Midland, Southern, and Kentish is rounded to 6 (5) 
written o, oo, oa. 
O.E. a\ In Northern is gradually fronted to (ce, s, e), written a, ai. 
In Northern, before 1 + cons., a is diphthongized to au, 
which becomes o in Modern period. 

f Becomes e already in O.E. period in the Anglian dialects 
q -p _! I and Kentish. 



A This e remains in M.E. 
Is preserved during 
[ dialects ; this ce becomes (I). 



CPr OF 7p\\ J - mb 6 remains in ivjl.-Ej. 

^ ' ' ' Is preserved during O.E. period, and in M.E. in Saxon 



O.E. ce 2 f Preserved in all old dialects except Kentish ; becomes e 
(z-muta--! there, and is retained in M.E. 
tion of a) [in all dialects of M.E., except Kentish, becomes (J). 

'In Midland, Southern, and Kentish is gradually over- 
rounded and raised towards (u). 
O.E. o\ In Northern is fronted or 'mixed,' and rhymes in M.E. 
with French ii ( = y ). 

_This sound is written u, ui, oi, in Northern and Sc. 

E f 1 f ^" s re * am ed only in Southern, written ui, u. 
fi-rniira ^ ^ n ^" or ^ nern an d Midland is unrounded to a. 
tion of wil * n Kentish appears as I, which had developed already in 
' \ O.E. period. 

/The Late W. Sax. y, from 11, is peculiar to this dialect ; 
it is levelled under y 1 in M.E. in Southern: huiren, 
O.E. y 2 \ ' hear,' Late W. Sax. hyran. 

All the other dialects have e already in O.E., and this 
remains in M.E. heren, etc. 



LOAN WORDS IN M.E. 281 

The Foreign Elements in Middle English. 

1. (a) The Scandinavian Loan-tvords. — As we have 
already seen, this element appears in O.E. to a certain 
extent, though in that period the words from this source are 
chiefly those which denote things and institutions belong- 
ing to the Norsemen, and more particularly such as refer 
to those habits, possessions, or institutions which would 
naturally come under the notice of a people who were in 
that unfortunate relation to them in which the English 
continued for so long. A terrorized community who were 
constantly expecting the attack of rapacious pirates, in 
which expectation they were not disappointed, might 
naturally know the names which their enemies gave to 
their vessels — 4 barda? 6 cnear '; and would not be un- 
familiar with the name of the coins, ' or a? with which 
their foes may occasionally have paid for those treasures 
or articles of food, which were not extorted at the point of 
the sword. Such words as the above and others of the 
same nature appear, though late, in O.E. literature. 

But the real influence of the Danish language upon our 
own was exercised when the foreigners had become per- 
manent settlers within our country, after they had mingled 
their blood with our own — when they had ceased to be 
regarded in the light of aliens. While the amalgamation 
of races, through intermarriage, was taking place, there 
would naturally be several generations of bi-lingual 
speakers : persons who sprang from mixed unions between 
Scandinavians and English. Among such families, both 
tongues would be equally familiar, and when speaking 
English it would be an unconscious process to introduce 



282 THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PERIOD 

from time to time a Norse word instead of an English one ; 
especially as the two languages were of such close affinity 
that their forms were in many cases practically identical ; 
in others, though slightly different, were yet recognisable 
and intelligible to English and Norse alike. To the bi- 
lingual period succeeded the age in which English definitely 
got the upper hand ; the younger generations no longer 
spoke Norse, but the English which remained, had incor- 
porated, and made its own, many elements from the vocabu- 
lary of the language which had died out. In some cases 
these loans ousted the original English words altogether. 

The very closeness of the resemblance between the two 
languages, makes it often a matter of difficulty to deter- 
mine, with absolute certainty, whether a given word is 
English or Norse. Bjorkman, in the work already quoted 
(ante, p. 249), points out that words could be introduced 
from one language into the other without either side 
recognising that they were foreign words. Cognate words 
in the two languages, which were identical in form, though 
slightly different in meaning, often acquired in English 
the sense which they possessed in Scandinavian. An 
example of this is O. Norse soma, ' befit, suit,' which is 
cognate with the O.E. seman, 4 settle, 1 ' satisfy. 1 In M.E, 
the word semen appears in the sense of ' befit, suit, beseem, 1 
etc., which last is, of course, the modern form of the 
word. We may compare also the adjective seemly, M.E. 
semelich, semli, etc. 

The phonological tests which we should naturally apply 
to settle the origin of a word as definitely English or 
Norse, are not always to be relied upon, since from the 
similarity of the two languages, it was possible, in adopting 



NORSE INFLUENCE ON THE LANGUAGE 283 

a word from Norse into English, to give it a thoroughly 
English form. Scandinavian words were changed to their 
phonological English equivalent by an unconscious ety- 
mological instinct. Thus O.E. sc- was recognised as 
identical with Norse si'-, and there were a large number of 
words which existed in both languages, and which differed 
only in having si-- in one, sc- in the other. Bi-lingual 
speakers who used both forms of these words could easily 
substitute sJc- when speaking English, and might even 
introduce the sound into English words which had no 
Scandinavian equivalent. M.E. scatteren, ' scatter, 1 side 
by side with the genuine English form shatteren, may well 
be due to such a process. Again, the etymological identity 
of Scandinavian ei with O.E. a was clearly perceived, and 
we find the Scandinavian name sveinn appearing as swan, 
a word which was not normally used in O.E. as a proper 
name, and whose Norse form is often transliterated 
phonetically in that language as Swegen. Similarly, the 
technical term heimsocn, ' an attack on the house or home,"' 
is translated literally into O.E. as hamsocn. 

The question of the precise original affinities between 
Northern English and Scandinavian is obscure, on account 
of the absence of early records. Hence in many cases it 
cannot be determined with certainty which points of 
resemblance are due to primitive affinity, which to indepen- 
dent parallel development, and which to later contact. 

(b) Scandinavian Suffixes in English. — Many M.E. verbs 
in -I- and -n- appear to be loan-words, and words with these 
suffixes are much more frequent in M.E. than in O.E. It 
seems probable that these suffixes may have spread from 
Scandinavian words to stems of English origin. When the 



284 THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PERIOD 

suffixes occur attached to native words, doubt may exist as 
to whether the forms with the suffixes are wholly Scan- 
dinavian or only the suffix. Examples of -I- suffix are : 
M.E. babblen, « babble,' Swed. babbla ; M.E. bustlen, 
'wander blindly, 1 O. West Scand. busila, 'splash about'; 
Mod. Eng. dialect daggle, with various meanings, such as 
' to drizzle ' and 4 to trail in the dirt,' etc. ; dangle, Swed, 
dialect dangla. The -n- suffix is used in Scandinavian 
speech to form weak intransitive verbs, generally inchoative, 
from verbal roots and adjectives (cf. Sweet, New English 
Grammar, p. 467). The -n- verbs in O.E. (cf. Sievers' 
list in his As. Gr., 3 § 411, Anm. 4) are not inchoative, 
and are formed from adjectives or substantives which 
already possess an -n- suffix, such as wcecen, 6 watching,"* 
whence awcecnian ; fcestenian, ' fix,' ' fasten,' is from 
fasten, ' fortress,' and so on. Examples of Scandinavian 
verbs with this suffix are hvltna, ' whiten,' i.e., ' become 
white.' Ancren Riwle has hivlten used intransitively, 
p. 150, 1. 7 (Morton's Ed., cf. Skeat's Etymological 
Dictionary, sub 'whiten''), but the Metrical English 
Pscdter, p. 50, 1. 9, has £ And over snawe sal I whitened be ',' 
where the word is used transitively. 

Such transitive verbs as gladden, redden, frighten, etc., 
are new formations of M. or Mod. Eng. Most of the -n- 
verbs in O.E. are transitive. The intransitive usage, as 
well as many of the verbs themselves of this class, would 
appear to be of Scandinavian origin. Examples are : 
batten, O. Swed. batna, from root bat-, which we have in 
better, O.E. beter, Goth, batiz; M.E. bliknen, 'turn 
pale,' O. West Scand. blikna ; M.E. dawnen, ' dawn,' 
O.E. dagian. On the other hand, O.E. costnian, M.E. 



TRACES OF NORSE SUFFIXES 286 

costnen, 'tempt,' 1 which occurs in vElfric, is probably 
native. (On the above, see also Skeat, Principles of English 
Etymology, i., p. 275 ; Kluge, Grundr. 2 , p. 939.) 

A trace of the O.N. nom. case ending -r is seen in O.E. 
\rcbll, where the 11, which in true O.E. words, we should 
expect to be simplified after a long vowel, is borrowed from 
Norse and preserved. This long I is due to the O.N. 
change of -Ir to 11. 

The neuter suffix -t is still preserved in scant, from 
O.N. skamt (neuter), 'short, 1 and in M.E. wi$t, Modern 
dialect wight, ' strong,' ' nimble. 1 

In spite of the doubts that may arise in specific cases 
from the reasons already mentioned, the most reliable tests 
of the Scandinavian origin of words in English are those 
based upon phonological characteristics. In cases where 
the forms in M.E. or Mod. Eng. cannot be explained by 
any known law of English sound change, whereas the 
Scandinavian sound laws are in complete agreement with 
the form, we are justified, pending fresh information, in 
assigning a Scandinavian origin. There are, indeed, some 
words for which the evidence is particularly conclusive, 
since it can be shown that their form has been determined 
by prehistoric sound changes which distinguish the North 
Germanic, to which the Scandinavian dialects belong, from 
the West Germanic group, of which O.E. is a member. 

A good example is the class of words which illustrate 
the development of Gmc. -w- after original short vowels. 
In West Gmc. this sound became a vowel, and formed a 
diphthong with the preceding vowel. In West Gmc, on 
the other hand, it was stopped to -gg{w-\ and in this 
form remains in Scandinavian. Mod. Eng. dialect dag, 



286 THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PERIOD 

' dew,' also ' to bedew, 1 appears in O. West Scand. as 
dogg, and in N. Swed. as dagg. This represents an 
original *dawa, which regularly appears in O.E. as dea(w), 
M.E. deu, Mod. Eng. dew, O.H.G. ton. 

Similarly, M.E. liaggen, ' cut, hew," represents O. West 
Scand. hoggiia, from *hawan. In W. Gmc. this is regularly 
represented by O.E. lieawan, O.H.G. houzcan, Mod. Eng. 
hezv. Again, Mod. Eng. dialect scag, ' to hide, take shelter,' 
and scug, ' a place of shelter,' is from a Scandinavian 
skitggi, ' shade,' Danish skygge, ' overshadow.' The Gmc. 
form would be *skuwjan, *sJcaw(j)cm, whence O.E. sceazcan, 
German schauen. Other examples of this class of words 
are : egg, O. West Scand. egg, but O.E. dig, M.E. ei, 
German ei ; trig, 'safe, tight, trim,' etc.; O. West Scand. 
tryggr, 'trusty, true,' but O.E. treozve, ge-triezve, Mod. 
Eng. true, O.H.G. gitr'mwi, German traile, etc. 

As examples of Mod. Eng. words whose form is at 
variance with what must have been the fate of the genuine 
O.E. forms had these survived, but which may be explained 
on the assumption of borrowing from Scandinavian, we 
may take the words weak, bleak. In O.E. we have bide, 
'pale,' and zodk, 'weak,' which in Mod. Eng. must 
have become ' bloke,' ' woke ' respectively — in fact, the 
M.E. ancestors of these forms blok, wok are actually 
found. 

The Mod. Eng. forms, however, are clearly from O.N. 
bleikr, veikr. It must be admitted that the development 
of the vowel in the English words (I) is not quite clear, on 
the assumption that they preserved the diphthong into the 
M.E. period, and diphthongized forms are found in M.E. 
On the other hand, it is possible that in some English 



FRENCH INFLUENCE 287 

dialects an early monopthongizing of Norse ei to (e or e) 
took place. 

Another good reason which justifies us in claiming a 
M.E. or Mod. Eng. word as Scandinavian is the fact, if it 
be a common word in familiar use, that it is not found in 
O.E., although the usual word in Norse. Orm is particularly 
rich in words of this kind, and has, among many others, the 
following, most of which are still in use : takenn, ' take, 1 
the O.E. word is niman, and ' nim ' is still found in our 
dialects ; til, ' to," cf un-til, and the common use of til for 
'to' in the Northern dialects; skinn, 'skin, 1 O.E. hyd, 
' hide '; occ, ' and"; skill, instead of the genuine Eng. craft; 
ille, instead yfel, i evil '; meoc, meek,' O.N. mjukr ; gate, 
4 way," s gait. -1 The English pronouns they, their, them, are 
all of Scandinavian origin, and have entirely replaced the 
O.E. hie, hira, heom, of which the last two are still found 
in Chaucer in the form hir, hem. (In addition to the 
authorities already quoted, see also Brate's useful article, 
Nordische Lehnworter im Ormidum, Paul and Braune's 
Beitr. x. 

2. The French. Element. — The problems connected with 
the influence of French upon English during the M.E. period 
have been exhaustively treated by Mr. Skeat in his Principles 
of English Etymology, vol. ii. The student should further 
consult the Anhang (Supplement) on this subject, by 
Behrens, incorporated with Kluge's Geschichte d. Engl. 
Spr. in Paul's Grundriss, pp. 950, etc.; and Appendix III. 
in Mr. Bradley's edition of Morris's Historical Outlines of 
English Accidence contains a list of Norman French words 
from the principal English works from the twelfth to the 
early fourteenth century. 



288 THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PERIOD 

As the question of Norman French influence has been 
so thoroughly and clearly treated in the above, and is, on 
the whole, familiar to students of the history of English, 
no more need be done here than to summarize a few of 
the chief points of importance in this connection. 

Norman French was a Northern French dialect. This 
dialect was spoken for about 300 years in England as 
a living, everyday language, at first by the official, noble, 
and governing classes, whose native language it was, later 
on by Englishmen also, even of the well-to-do sort gene- 
rally. By the middle of the thirteenth century, probably, 
most educated persons were bi-lingual, those of Norman 
origin speaking at least some English, while the natives 
acquired the language of the foreigners. With the fusion 
of the races came, as we saw in the case of Norse, a fusion 
of vocabularies also. The Norman laws contain many 
technical words of English origin, while French words 
begin to be used in ever-increasing numbers by English 
writers from the year 1100 onwards. 

Norman French, or, as, following Mr. Skeat, we may call 
it, Anglo-French, naturally had a development of its own 
in this country. Besides being the language of everyday 
life among the upper classes, this dialect was also the 
official dialect of the law and of Parliament down to 1362, 
and it continued to be taught in schools down to 1385. 

With its death as an official vehicle there followed the 
rapid dying out of Anglo-French as a spoken language. 
In fact, English must have already obtained a very strong 
hold upon all classes before French was abolished by law 
as the dialect of officialdom ; but the latter occurrence gave 
it its death-blow. We may .conclude, therefore, that soon 



INFLECTIONS 289 

after the middle of the fourteenth century the direct source 
of French words of this particular origin was running low. 
By this time, however, hundreds of Anglo-French words 
had passed into the speech of Englishmen, a very large 
number of which have remained to this day in universal 
use. Chaucer's language shows how deeply the new element 
had penetrated into the texture of English vocabulary ; it 
was no longer felt as strange by his time : it was part and 
parcel of English. 

By the side of Anglo-French words derived direct, in 
England itself, many others were borrowed during the 
fourteenth century from the French of the Continent, 
mostly from the Central French or Parisian dialect of 
the lie de France, but others also from the Picardian 
dialect. 

The influence of Central French, both direct and 
through literature, which began in the M.E. period, has 
continued ever since, and was especially strong during the 
seventeenth century, as may be seen from such a comedy 
as Dryden's Mariage a la Mode. 

Middle English Inflections. 

The changes wrought during the Transition and M.E. 
periods in the O.E. inflectional system are the result 
partly of natural sound change, partly of analogy. 

As a result of the former, we may say generally that all 
unstressed vowels — that is, therefore, all the vowels of the 
endings — were levelled under e — e.g., O.E. stands, M.E. 
ston-es ; O.E. eagena (gen. pi.), M.E. §3(e)ne ; O.E. wudw, 
M.E. wode, etc. Final m was levelled under ?i, which was 
subsequently dropped altogether. 

19 



290 THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PERIOD 

An account of M.E. inflections is to be found in The 
Introduction of Morris and Skeat's Specimens of Early 
English, vols. i. and ii. ; and the development from O.E. 
is briefly traced in Sweet's various works, already cited, 
upon Historical English Grammar, and in Morris's 
Historical Outlines of English Accidence (Ed. Bradley). 

We select here some of the leading features of the M.E. 
inflectional system for enumeration. 

Declensions. 

Substantives. — The O.E. substantives, like those in all 
other Gmc, or, for the matter of that, in all Aryan 
languages, are classified for purposes of declension, ac- 
cording to the nature of their stems. We distinguish 
vowel stems and consonantal stems. In the former case 
the characteristic vowel of a class followed the ' root ' or 
base, and was immediately followed by the case ending : 
Nom. sing. Gk. Xu«-o-?, Gmc. *zculf-a-z, Goth, wulf-s (the 
stem vowel being lost in the historic period in Gmc), O.E. 
wulf (with loss not only of stem vowel, but of case-ending 
as well) ; instr. pi. Lith. av-i-mis, " sheep, 1 Goth, (dat.) 
gast-i-m, 6 guests, 1 O.E. (dat.) sun-u-m, 'sons. 1 The stems 
even in Gmc. had undergone some levelling through 
analogy, and in O.E. all stems take the ending -um in 
dat. pi., the vowel in this case representing at once u and 
o, and the m being all that was left of the original instr. 
pi. case-ending -mis, fully preserved, as seen above in 
Lithuanian. 

Consonantal stems are those which end in consonants, 
which sometimes, as in the case of Latin pes, 6 foot, 1 from 
*_ped-s, was the final consonant of the ' root ' itself ; in other 



THE RUIN OF THE DECLENSIONS 291 

cases, such as hom-in-em or irar-ep-a, was preceded by a 
vowel. 

Of the consonantal stems, the most important class in 
O.E. is that of the -?i-stems, usually known as the 'Weak' 
declension. O.E. nama, gen. sing., etc., naman, gen. pi. 
namna. The O.E. declensions, already greatly dilapidated 
by change and loss of final or other unstressed syllables, and 
considerably confused by analogy, as compared with that 
system which Comparative Philology enables scholars to 
reconstruct as the original Aryan, underwent further dila- 
pidation and confusion in M.E. through the continued 
operation of similar factors of change. It is still possible 
to distinguish a-stems, w-stems, i-stems, etc., among the 
' strong ' declensions of O.E. In M.E. these are very soon 
all levelled under one 6 strong ' type, that of masculine 
a-stems. The full M.E. form of this declension runs : 



Singular. 


Plural. 


N.A. ston. 


stones. 


G. stones. 


stone. 


D. stone. 


stonen 



Before the end of the M.E. period, however, all that 
survived in the sing, was the gen. -es 9 and in the pi. -es was 
used throughout for all cases. A weak gen. pi. in -ene also 
occurs. 

The old weak declension included all three genders. 
Masculines have -a in nom. sing, and -an in the other 
cases ; the pi. ran nom. and ace. -an, gen. -ena, dat. -urn 
(like strong nouns). 

The neuter weak declension was the same, except that nom. 
and ace. sing, ended in -e ; the feminine had -e in nom. sing.. 

19—2 



292 THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PERIOD 

otherwise was declined exactly like the masculine. In 
M.E. the sing, of all genders has -e in nom., -en in the 
other cases ; the pi. -en in all cases but the gen., which 
ends in -ene. 

Here, again, we soon find the suffix -en used simply to 
express plural number. 

The weak gen. pi. -ene was sometimes retained for con- 
venience, fairly late, and is often used in early texts with 
nouns which otherwise took the strong pi. suffix -es in the 
nom. pi. — aire Kingene King occurs in a twelfth-century 
homily (Morris, O.E. Homilies, second series, p. 89, I. 16). 

Of the two types of declension, the strong predominates 
greatly in the North and Midlands, while the weak is far more 
frequent in the South, where it is extended to words which 
were originally strong. At the present day the Berkshire 
dialect uses primrosen and housen in addition to the 
other scattered waifs of this declension which survive in 
the Standard language. 

Verbs. — Among the most characteristic dialectal distinc- 
tions in M.E. are the personal endings of the pres. indie. 
of verbs. They are as follows : 

North : -e or -es in first, and -es in all other persons sing, 
and pi. 

Midlands : first -e, second -est, third -eth ; pi. -en in all 
persons. 

Southern : first -e, second -ie)st, third -(e)ih ; pi. -eth in all 
persons. 

The present participle ends in -and (e) in the North, 
-end(e) in the Midlands, ind(e) in the South. 

The suffix -ing(e), originally that whereby verbal nouns 
were formed (O.E. -ung, as in leornung, etc.), gradually 



THE DEFINITE ARTICLE 293 

replaces the older -ind(e) as the suffix of present participles, 
although the former continued to be used in the South 
down to the middle of the fourteenth century, while 
the old ending -and was still preserved in the North con- 
siderably later — e.g., syngand, sayand, plesand, etc., are 
still used by Sir David Lyndsay in a passage of some 
twenty verses given by Mr. Gregory Smith in Specimens 
of Middle Scots, pp. 162, 163, by the side of forms 
in -ing. 

Pronouns. — The distinctions of gender and case ex- 
pressed by the O.E. demonstrative pronoun, also used 
as a definite article, se, seo, poet, were considerably im- 
paired in M.E. The Northern and Midland dialects 
very early use the new form pe (where the p is due to 
the analogy of the other cases and genders) as an inde- 
clinable article in all cases and for all genders of the sing, 
the pi. is pa. In the South, however, the distinctions of 
gender and case are preserved much longer. A new fern, 
nom. sing. peo was formed to replace the old fern. seT) by 
the side of masc. ]>e, and pet, corresponding to O.E. pait, 
was used before neuter words. 

In the North pet was used as a demonstrative pronoun, 
indeclinable, with a pi. pas. 

Traces of the original inflections still survive in a few 
fossilized forms, e.g., the proper name Atterbury — M.E. 
at per{e) bury, O.E. ait pcere byrig, the change from at per 
to otter being quite normal in M.E. ; for the nonce = M.E. 
for pe nones —for pen ones, where pen is properly a dative, 
O.E. pcem, levelled under the accusative, O.E. pone, ones 
being a genitive in form, used first adverbially, but here 
as a substantive. The neuter article survives in Sc. the tane 



294 THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PERIOD 

and the tither, originally M.E. \et dne } \et d\er. The 
f other was perfectly polite colloquial English a hundred 
years ago, though now felt as a vulgarism when used 
seriously. 

The Rise of Literary English. 

The works written in this country down to the third 
quarter of the fifteenth century show more or less strongly 
marked points of divergence in the form of language, 
according to the province in which they were written. 
These differences are observable in the vocabulary, more 
strongly still in the inflexions, and most characteristically 
of all in the sound system, so far as this can be recon- 
structed from the spelling. 

From the period at which Caxton's activities begin 
(1475), the dialectal variety, which had hitherto been so 
remarkable a feature, disappears, to all intents and pur- 
poses, from literature. Henceforth the language of books 
becomes uniform, the spelling, owing to the necessity for 
comparative consistency felt by the printers, rapidly 
crystallizes, and the form of language thus displayed 
differs but little in its written form from that of 
the present day, of which it is, indeed, the lineal 
ancestor. 

This literary dialect, to which Caxton by his copious 
industry gave wide currency and permanence, was not a 
bogus form of speech, deliberately vamped together from 
various written or spoken sources. It represents a living, 
spoken form of language, that of the Capital. 

The London Dialect. — This dialect can be traced from 
the middle of the thirteenth century, in proclamations, 



DIALECTAL CHARACTER OF LITERARY ENGLISH 295 

charters, and wills — that is, both in public and private 
documents. The earliest forms are distinctly Southern 
in character, but Midland influence gains ground, and 
even Northern features find their way into the latest 
charters of the fifteenth century. Kentish influence is 
considerable, but the Saxon elements are more and more 
eliminated. 

The language of literature and the Standard spoken 
English of the present day, while mainly Midland, or, 
rather, traceable to a M.E. Midland type, yet preserve 
Northern, Saxon, and Kentish elements in isolated cases. 
It is contended by Morsbach (fiber den Ursprung der 
neuenglischen Schriftsprache, Heilbronn, 1888) — (1) that 
this composite dialect developed naturally in the Metropolis 
owing to social and political conditions ; (2) that this is 
proved by an investigation of the official and legal docu- 
ments in English emanating from London during the 
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries ; (3) this dialect gradually 
spread its influence as a literary medium far and wide, 
until it became the only recognised form for writers from 
all provinces. Caxton, who translated several important 
works, such as Trevisa's version of Higden, into the 
London dialect, greatly contributed to the spread of this 
form of speech. 

Dibelius, in John Capgrave nnd die englische Schrift- 
sprache, Anglia, xxiii., p. 152, etc., argues that not only 
in London, but in Oxford also, the tendency arose to 
set up a fixed literary form of English. WyclifFe, a 
Yorkshireman by birth, who became Master of Balliol, 
chose the Oxford type as his literary vehicle. The 
differences between the London and Oxford types persisted 



296 THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PERIOD 

down to the third quarter of the fifteenth century. Both 
types were imitated throughout the country, and documents 
from Norfolk, Suffolk, and Worcester all show, by the side 
of local peculiarities, certain points of agreement with both 
the Oxford and the London forms of English. These 
points of agreement become stronger as time goes on, 
showing that the standards of both places were followed 
over a wide area. The knowledge of the London English, 
before printing, would naturally spread through the in- 
fluence of the law and legislature ; that of Oxford would 
be carried far and wide by the clergy. In this way the 
path was prepared for the universal acceptance of a literary 
form which combined the features of both the Oxford and 
the London models. Such a form, Dibelius maintains, is 
to be found in the printed works of Caxton, and such a 
form exists in Present-day English, which is the descen- 
dant of the dialect employed by Caxton. The great 
writer of the Oxford type of English was Wycliffe, whose 
translation of the Bible contributed to give currency to 
that form, and this influence may be detected among some 
of the writers of the Paston Letters. Dibelius, while laying 
stress upon the English of Oxford as an important element 
in the literary dialect, admits freely that the London type 
predominates, and that its influence is found everywhere, 
even in writings which show no trace of Oxford influence. 
Caxton's English is far more that of London than of 
Oxford, and probably what of the latter element is found 
in his works is due to literature rather than to direct con- 
tact. 

The language of Chaucer deviates in many respects 
from the typical London dialect of the charters, and the 



CHAUCER AND CAXTON 297 

modern English literary language is nearer to the latter 
than to the former. The explanation probably is that, 
although Chaucer certainly wrote in one form of the 
London speech of his day, the particular variety of this 
which he employed was the courtly language of the upper 
strata of society. His writings seem to represent an actual 
contemporary form of language rather than a literary 
tradition. The language actually preserved in the London 
wills and charters is most probably, to a certain extent, 
stereotyped, and the same may well be true of the Oxford 
type as represented by Wycliffe. Chaucer's language 
contains more Southern (Saxon), and probably also more 
Kentish elements than that form which was to become the 
ancestor of Present-day English. Strong though the literary 
influence of Chaucer was, it was not sufficient to found a 
permanent type of literary language, in spite of his 
numerous imitators and followers. We must, indeed, 
suppose that a Court dialect is a more transitory type of 
speech, more liable to the modifying effects of fashion, than 
the speech of the educated middle class. It would appear 
that the form adopted by Caxton in his writings was so 
vigorous and full of vitality, as a spoken language also, 
that it was confirmed, consolidated, and, when necessary, 
subsequently rejuvenated from the spoken form. Just as 
the written forms of this dialect rapidly ousted and re- 
placed the other English dialects for purposes of public 
and private written documents, such as wills, letters, and 
documents of all kinds, no less than in purely literary 
productions, so also, though this was a slower process, 
and one not yet complete, the spoken form became the 
standard language of the learned, the polite, and the 



298 THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PERIOD 

fashionable, to the gradual elimination of provincial 
speech. 

In addition to the authorities referred to above, the 
student may, with great profit, consult Ten Brink, Chaucer's 
Sprache und Verskunst, Leipzig, 1899, and the remarks on 
pp. 20-29 of Kaluza's Historische GramrnatiJc der englischen 
Spr., vol. i., Berlin, 1900. 



CHAPTER XIV 

CHANGES IN ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION DURING THE 
MODERN PERIOD— THE DEVELOPMENT OF ENGLISH 
SOUNDS FROM THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY TO THE 
PRESENT DAY 

The Problem. 
It is proposed in this chapter to attempt to trace the 
development of the English language, more particularly 
of the Standard dialect, so far as the pronunciation is con- 
cerned, through the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth 
centuries, and to inquire by what paths of change the 
sounds of late M.E. passed into those forms which they 
now have in English speech. 

During the five hundred years which have elapsed since 
the death of Chaucer very remarkable and far-reaching 
changes have taken place in the Standard language, and 
of these we may distinguish two main features. Firstly, 
the actual sounds, especially the vowels, have undergone 
considerable shifting ; and secondly, from the materials at 
our disposal, it is possible to establish the fact that in 
most words more than one type of pronunciation of the 
vowels has always existed, and that that type which at 
one period is considered the ' correct ' one, at a subsequent 
date is often discarded in favour of another type, or its 

299 



300 ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION IX THE MODERN PERIOD 

descendant, which a former age would have regarded as 
' ill-bred,' ' vulgar," or ' incorrect.' 

The task of the reconstruction of the pronunciation of 
English during the different epochs of the Modern Period 
is of a different nature from that of establishing the sounds 
of Old and Middle English. In the latter case we have a 
variegated orthography which differs from dialect to dialect, 
in some cases from scribe to scribe, in the efforts to express 
the sound. The problem is to interpret the written symbols : 
in the former case we have a conventional spelling which 
is practically fixed, and such varieties as exist throw but 
little light upon the changes of pronunciation. On the 
other hand, we have in the Modern Period, for the first 
time, a series of systematic attempts, from various motives, 
to describe the actual sounds used and their distribution. 
The problem, therefore, is mainly how to interpret rightly 
the accounts given by contemporaries of the pronunciation 
of the various generations. It is unquestionable that in 
this task we obtain help from knowledge gathered in- 
directly by a study of the changing spelling of M.E., 
just as this knowledge is itself often supplemented and 
confirmed by the categorical statements of sixteenth or 
seventeenth century writers. 

The Sources of our Knowledge of the Pronunciation of the 
Sixteenth, Seventeenth, and Eighteenth Centuries. 

From the year 1530 onwards there exists a series of 
works by English writers in English, French, Welsh, and 
Latin which deal directly or incidentally with the pro- 
nunciation of English during the age in which the writers 
lived. These men belonged to several different classes of 



FIRST STEPS IN RECONSTRUCTION 301 

society ; there were Divines, some of whom were Bishops 
and Court Chaplains, Oxford and Cambridge Professors 
and Heads of Houses, Schoolmasters of various ranks ; 
there were Poets, Scholars, and Men of Science. 

The late A. J. Ellis, to whom belongs the glory of 
having first made use of such writers as the above for our 
present purpose, and of having ferreted out many a long- 
forgotten tract, gives in Part I. of his wonderful work on 
Early English Pronunciation, Chapter I., an interesting 
account of his first struggles to interpret the accounts 
given by the above-mentioned phonetic authorities. His 
first certain guide to sixteenth-century pronunciation was 
derived from the works of William Salesbury, who in 1547 
published a Welsh and English Dictionary, in the Intro- 
duction to which, according to Ellis, 'about 150 typical 
English words ' are transcribed ' into Welsh letters. 1 The 
same writer also produced in 1567 a tract upon the pro- 
nunciation of Welsh, in which he refers to many other 
languages, thus establishing for the modern reader the 
pronunciation of sixteenth-century Welsh. It can thus 
be shown that the pronunciation of Welsh has changed 
very little since Salesbury 's time, and his transliterations 
of English words into Welsh spelling are therefore of the 
highest value in ascertaining the English pronunciation of 
his day. Salesbury's essays are published in eoctenso by 
Ellis, together with an English translation of the Welsh 
treatise, in E.E.P., p. 743, etc. An even earlier phonetic 
transliteration of English into Welsh spelling, that of a 
Hymn to the Virgin, made about 1500 (cf. Sweet, H.E.S., 
p. 203), was published in the Transactions of the Philo- 
logical Society, 1880-1881. 



302 ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION IN THE MODERN PERIOD 

The following is a selection of the principal authorities, 
a fuller list of which is given in Ellis's E.E.P., Part L, 
p. 31, etc., and Sweet's H.E.S., p. 204, etc. : 

Sixteenth-century A uthorities. 

1530. Palsgrave: Vesclarcissement delalangue Francoyse. 

[Palsgrave was a graduate of Cambridge, and tutor 
to Princess Mary, sister of Henry VIII., and later 
on a Royal Chaplain. He died in 1554. He 
spoke the form of English in vogue at Court. 
His book contains an elaborate account of French 
pronunciation, elucidated by reference to English 
and Italian.] 

1545. Meigret : Traite touchant le commun usage de 
I ^escriture francoise. 

[This book deals with French pronunciation, and 
makes the pronunciation of Palsgrave's English 
analogues more secure.] 

1547. Salesbury: A Dictionary of Englishe and Welshe. 

[Salesbury was born in Denbighshire, and studied 
at Oxford. See reference to this book and to 
Ellis's account of it above.] 

1555. Cheke (Sir John) : De pronunciatione Grascce. 

[Cheke was born at Cambridge in 1514, and moved 
in the best literary society. He was Secretary 
of State in 1552, and died in 1557. In his trea- 
tise several Greek sounds are illustrated by Eng- 
lish words spelled phonetically in Greek letters.] 

1567. Salesbury : A playne and familiar Introduction 

teaching how to pronounce the letters in the 

Brytishe Tongue, now commonly called Welsh. 

[All the important portions of this book reprinted 
by Ellis ; see references above.] 



SIXTEENTH-CENTURY AUTHORITIES 303 

1568. Smith (Sir Thomas) : De recta et emendata lingua? 

anglicce scriptione. 

[Smith was born in 1515 at Saffron Walden, Essex. 
He was a Fellow of Queen's College, Cambridge, 
public orator, and in 1536 became Provost of 
Eton. He was a Secretary of State in 1548, 
Privy Councillor in 1571. He died in 1577. The 
object of the above book was to improve English 
spelling. It contains tables of words printed in 
a phonetic alphabet.] 

1569. Hart : An Orthographic- conteyning the due order 

and reason, howe to write or painte thimage of 
mannes voice, most like to the life or Nature. 
By J. H. Chester. 

[Hart was the real name of the writer of this book, 
according to the catalogue of the British Museum. 
Hart was, according to Ellis, probably a Welsh- 
man. Phonetic symbols are used in the above 
work, and the author was acquainted with several 
languages. He favours a pronunciation which 
was in his day only coming in. Gill, writing 
more than fifty years later, says of Hart : 
4 Sermonem nostrum characteribus suis non sequi 
sed dncere meditabatur. , J 

1580. Bullokar: Booke at large for the Amendment of 
Orthographie for English Speech. 

[Bullokar uses phonetic spelling. The pronuncia- 
tion which he records is archaic, and agrees more 
with that of Palsgrave than with that of his own 
immediate contemporaries.] 

1619 and 1621. Gill : Logonomia Anglica. 

[Gill was born in Lincolnshire in 1564 (same year as 
Shakespeare) ; member of C.C.C., Cambridge ; 
Headmaster of St. Paul's School, 1608 ; died 



304 ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION IN THE MODERN PERIOD 

1635. He transcribes passages from the Psalms 
and from Spenser in his phonetic alphabet, and 
discusses pronunciation at length. Gill is old- 
fashioned, and has a horror of modernisms. The 
pronunciation described is, on the whole, that of 
the middle of the sixteenth century. The work 
was reprinted in 1903 by Jiriczek in the series 
8 Quellen und Forschungen? Strassburg.] 

Butler : The English Grammar . . . whereto is annexed 
an Index of Words like and unlike. 

[Butler was a member of Magdalen College, Oxford, 
and a country clergyman. He uses phonetic 
spelling. His pronunciation is that of the end 
of the sixteenth century, and he opposes the new 
pronunciation.] 

Seventeenth-century A uthorities. 

Ben Jonson's English Grammar is of interest on account 
of its author, but is of little value for our purpose. 

1651. Willis (Thomas, of Thistlewood, Middlesex) : Vesti- 
hulum Linguae Latinos. A Dictionarie for Children. 

[Contains upwards of 4,000 words, supposed to be 
arranged according to rhyme, but in most cases, 
in reality, grouped according to spelling. There 
are a certain number of genuine rhymes which 
are useful.] 

1653-1699. Wallis : Grammatica Linguae Anglicanoe. 
Cut prcefigitur De Loquela ; sive de sonorum 
omnium loquelarium formatione : Tractatus Gram- 
matico -Physieus. 

This book went through six editions between the 
above dates. Wallis was born at Ashford, in 
Kent in 1616 ; appointed Savilian Professor of 



SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY AUTHORITIES 305 

Geometry at Oxford in 1649 ; died, 1703. The 
introduction is of great importance, and estab- 
lishes, with considerable certainty, the value of 
all the symbols. This work is the chief authority 
for the middle of the seventeenth century.] 

1668. Wilkins : An Essay towards a Real Character, and 
a Philosophical Language. 

[Wilkins was born in Northamptonshire in 1614 ; 
graduated at Oxford in 1648 ; elected Warden 
of Wadham, 1648; Bishop of Ripon, 1668; 
died, 1672. This ' Essay ' contains an admirable 
treatise on Phonetics. Wilkins makes use of a 
phonetic alphabet, into which he transliterates 
the Lord's Prayer and the Creed. The book is 
not infrequently to be met with in booksellers' 
catalogues of the present day.] 

1668. Price : English Orthographie is the beginning of a 
very long title, which includes, among other 
things, * Also some Rules for the points and pro- 
nunciation.' 

[The book, when used by the side of other 
authorities, is useful ' in discriminating the 
exact sounds of the different vowel digraphs of 
the seventeenth century.'] 

1685. Cooper : Grammatica Linguae Anglicance. 

[This book contains a treatise on speech sounds, 
a discussion of peculiarities of orthography and 
pronunciation, and long lists of words illus- 
trating the several vowel sounds.] 

1688. Miege : The Great French Dictionary. 

[Valuable information as to pronunciation prefixed 
to each letter.] 

20 



306 ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION IN THE MODERN PERIOD 

Eighteenth-Century A uthorities. 

1701. Jones (eToHN) : Practical Phonography. (The first 

words of an immense title.) 

[A kind of pronouncing dictionary, in which all 
kinds of pronunciations of the same words are 
given, and therefore valuable as recording what 
actually occurred in English speech at the 
beginning of the eighteenth century.] 

Circa 1713. Anonymous: Grammar of the English Tongue. 

[Useful in corroboration of the statements of other 
authorities of the period.] 

1725. Lediard : Grammatica Anglicana Critica^ in which 
English words are transliterated phonetically into 
German spelling. Ellis gives a full account of 
results (Part IV., p. 1040, etc.). 

1766. Buchanan : Essay towards establishing a standard 
for an elegant and uniform pronunciation of 
the English Language throughout the British 
Dominions. 

[The work of a Scotsman, this book bears some 
traces of this in the pronunciation described. 
Ellis notes that on the whole, however, this does 
not differ materially from that heard in the 
middle of the nineteenth century, except inas- 
much as certain pronunciations of certain words 
are given as * learned and polite , which would 
not now be so accounted.] 

A tract by Dr. Benjamin Franklin, entitled A 
Scheme for a New Alphabet and Reformed Mode 
of Spelling, in the form of a correspondence 
between himself and a lady, is given by Ellis 
(pp. 1058, etc.). The correspondence was carried 
on in the proposed alphabet, and the tract contains 
a table of sounds and symbols, and remarks by 



THE INTERPRETATION OF THE AUTHORITIES 307 

Franklin thereupon. Ellis prints the paper in 
full, but unfortunately turns the whole thing 
into his own very clumsy Palasotype. 

Method of using the Authorities. — By comparing the 
statements of a considerable number of contemporary 
authorities with regard to the pronunciation of a given 
sound, weighing one against another, and checking and 
interpreting one by another, we attempt first to arrive at 
a conclusion as to what is the precise sound which the 
various writers are trying to describe. The result of such 
an investigation often leads to the conclusion that at the 
same period there was more than one pronunciation of 
the same word ; the writers are manifestly describing 
different sounds, though dealing with the same symbol. 
We thus establish the existence of two or more types of 
pronunciation at the same period. These varieties may 
arise from several causes. They may be the descendants 
of doublets which arose at an earlier period; they may 
represent different dialectal treatments of the same original 
sound ; they may represent the pronunciation of the older 
and younger generation respectively. When the existence of 
the several types at a given period is once definitely estab- 
lished, the next problem is to inquire which earlier type 
each represents, and into which later form it subsequently 
develops. Until we have done this we can form no true 
idea of the development of any particular sound. Hence 
it is of the highest importance to know all the pronuncia- 
tions of a given word which existed at a given time. If 
we find that ' blood ' was pronounced (blud) in the six- 
teenth and seventeenth centuries, we are not justified in 
concluding, without further evidence, that the modern 

20—2 



308 ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION IN THE MODERN PERIOD 

form (blad) is its lineal descendant. This would be tanta- 
mount to asserting that seventeenth-century (u) appears as 
(a) in the nineteenth, a statement which would at once be 
disproved by further examination. The problem resolves 
itself into showing (1) what sixteenth-century sound was 
the ancestor of Present-day (a), and (2) what is the 
Present-day representative of the sixteenth and seven- 
teenth century (u). When we find that a very large 
number of words which now contain the sound (a) were 
pronounced with (ti) in the sixteenth century, and with 
that sound alone, we should be inclined to say that the 
former sound has been developed from the latter, and 
further to postulate a sixteenth- century pronunciation 
(blud) as the ancestor of the Present-day polite form of 
the word. As a matter of fact, the pronunciation (blud) 
can be shown to have existed in the sixteenth century by 
the side of (blud). Similarly, although we can show that 
in the eighteenth century, in good society, people said 
(Kwaeliti) and (Kwaentiti), it would be quite erroneous to 
suppose that these particular forms developed into the 
Present-day (Kwoliti) and (Kwontitf). The former types 
have simply been discarded, and their places have been 
taken by others whose predecessors existed in the 
eighteenth century side by side with those first mentioned, 
although at that time they did not happen to be the 
forms in fashionable use. 

In a word, when tracing the history of a language we 
must always bear in mind the twofold problem : first, 
the development of the actual sounds themselves, and, 
secondly, the changing fashion of using them in a given 
dialect in a particular group of words. 



MODERN DEVELOPMENT OF M.E. A 309 

Ellis and Sweet both give the statements of the various 
authorities, so that the student can draw his own con- 
clusions, in which he will, however, receive great help 
from the discussion of every point by the above-mentioned 
scholars. Ellis, besides the words in the text, has copious 
pronouncing vocabularies of the sixteenth, seventeenth, 
and eighteenth centuries, compiled from the whole body 
of Orthographists, Phoneticians, and Dictionary - makers 
of those centuries. In these lists all the variants in each 
period are given, and they are of the greatest use as 
affording convenient material for phonological investi- 
gation. 

The Sounds in Detail. 

In the present case the most convenient way of dealing 
with the subject will be to start with the M.E. sound and 
trace it downwards to the present day. 

By way of illustration of the kind of material upon 
which our conclusions are based, and also of the method 
of dealing with it, it will be as well to give the full state- 
ments of the contemporary authorities concerning M.E. a 
and a. The development of the remaining sounds will be 
given without reference to these, but each statement is 
based upon the same kind of material as that given in the 
case of a and a. 

The rules of pronunciation as given by the authorities 
are always based upon the uses of the letters. 

Palsgrave (1530): 'The soundyng of a which is most 
generally used throughout the frenche tonge is such as we 
use with vs, where the best englysche is spoken, whiche 
is lyke as the Italians sound a, or as they with vs, that 
pronounce the latine tonge aryght. 1 



310 ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION IN THE MODERN PERIOD 

This points to a mid-back-slack for ' the best English." 
Possibly the other sound of a which Palsgrave implies also 
existed in his day was a fronted form — almost our (ae). 

Salesbury (1547) : ' A in English is of the same sound 
as a in Welsh, as is evident in these words of English — alh 
aal, pale, paal, sale, sal." 

The double vowels here imply length, and the last word 
should have been transcribed saal. The sound of a in 
Welsh at present is (a) mid-back-slack, whether long or 
short. He invariably transcribes M.E. a with aa, and 
M.E. a with ae, apart from occasional inconsistencies like 
the above : babe he writes baab, bake, baak, plague, plaag, 
etc. Examples of short a are papp, nag,ffiacs (flax), etc. 

Smith (1568) says the only sounds of English a are those 
of long and short Latin a. 

As samples of short a he has : man, far, hat, mar, pass ; 
examples of the long are : mane, far ewell, hate, mare, pace, 
bare, bake. Since Salesbury gives the last word with (a), 
there can be little doubt what sound Smith implied by 
6 sonus a vocalis Romanae longse. 1 The first group had 
the same sound short. 

Hart (1569) identifies English a with that of German, 
Italian, French, Spanish, and Welsh, which is to be pro- 
nounced 4 with wyde opening the mouth, as when a man 
yauneth."' 

Butler (1633) : * A is in English, as in all other languages, 
the first vowel, and the first letter of the Alphabet ; the 
which . . . hath two sounds, one when it is short, another 
when long, as in man and mane, hat and hate? 

This is the first indication of a distinction in quality 
between long and short a, and it is not repeated till fifty 



FRONTING OF M.E. A 311 

years later, by Cooper. It seems clear that Butler must 
have heard a difference, however, and since both long and 
short are certainly fronted a little later, it seems probable 
that one may have been slightly in advance of the other 
in reaching (ae). Again, since M.E. long a has not only 
been fronted, but also raised to (e, e, ei) in later English, 
we shall perhaps be justified in assuming that Butler pro- 
nounced (haet) hat, but (hat) hate. If so, he must have 
been rather in advance of other contemporary writers, and 
must have described the pronunciation just coming in. 
Palsgrave's implied statement of the existence of another 
sound of a, than of full-mid-back sound, may have referred 
to this fronted form, which in his day was apparently not 
highly esteemed, and may have originated in provincial 
speech. 

The net result of the above statements seems to be that 
M.E. a, long or short, was retained throughout the six- 
teenth and well into the seventeenth century. The front- 
ing tendency began in the sixteenth century, but was 
considered first as a vulgarism, and then as new-fangled, 
until the first quarter of the seventeenth century. 

Middle English ' a ' in Seventeenth-Century Pronunciation. 

Ben Jonson (1640) : ' A with us in most words is pro- 
nounced lesse than the French a, as in art, act, apple, 
ancient. But when it comes before I in the end of a 
syllable, it obtaineth the full French sound, and is uttered 
with the mouth and throat wide open'd, the tongue bent 
back from the teeth, as in al, smal, gal, fall, tal, cal? 

The first of these statements, that a ' is lesse than the 
French a,' seems to indicate that Ben Jonson followed the 



312 ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION IN THE MODERN PERIOD 

(then) new fashion, and pronounced a fronted (a), though 
perhaps not yet (as). The a before I was clearly a full- 
back vowel, whether mid or low it is impossible to say. 
The pronunciation of all, small, gall, etc., here described 
is not that which produced Present-day Standard English 
(51, smol), etc. We shall deal with that under the M.E. au. 

Wallis (1653-1699) represents fully-developed, typical 
seventeenth-century pronunciation. He describes English 
a as ' a exile] and goes on : ' Quale auditur in vocibus, bat, 
vespertilio ; bate, discordia ; pal, palla episcopalis ; pale, 
pallidus ; Sam (Samuelis contractio) ; same, idem. ; lamb, 
agnus ; lame, claudus ; dam, mater (brutosum) ; dame, 
domina ; bar, vectis ; bare, nudus ; ban, exsecror ; bane, 
pernicies, etc. Differt hie sonus a Germanorum a pingui 
seu aperto ; eo quod Angli linguae medium elevent, adeoque 
aerem in Palato comprimant ; Germani vero linguae medium 
deprimant, adeoque aerem comprimant in gutture. Galli 
fere sonum ilium proferunt ubi e praecedit literam m vel n, 
in eadem syllaba ut entendement] etc. 

This vowel {a) has previously been classified by Wallis 
as one of those of which he says : ' Vocales Patinas in Palato 
formantur, aere scilicet inter palati et linguae medium 
moderate compresso 1 ; and distinguishing the particular 
vowel he says : ' Majori apertura formatur Anglorum a, 
hoc est a exile.' 

This description must refer to the same sound as that 
which Ben Jonson says is ' lesse than the French a] and is 
pretty clearly fixed by Wallis as the low-front, being made 
by the ' middle of the tongue ' and with ' a greater open- 
ing ' than the other front vowels. It will be noticed that 
the English words in the passage quoted above are alter- 



RISE OF THE MODERN M SOUND 313 

nately short and long, and must therefore be (ae), as in 
(baet), and (ae), as in (beet), respectively. 

Wilkins (1668) says of a ' that it is framed by an emis- 
sion of the breath, betwixt the tongue and the concave of 
the palate ; the upper superfices of the tongue being rendered 
less concave, and at a less distance from the palate.'' 

Wilkins' pairs of words to illustrate the short and long 
form of this sound are — 



Short: bat 
Long: bate 



val-\ey 
vale 



fat 

fate 



mat 
mate 



pal 
pale 



Rad-nor 
trade 



These examples and the remarks of Wilkins which have 
been quoted point to the same results as in the case of 
Wallis. 

Cooper (1685) : Cooper's account of the pronunciation 
of a must indeed have been considered ' new-fangled ' by 
the older generation of his contemporaries. He distinguishes 
two sounds for original long a, using the phrase ' a ex'ilis ' 
to designate a different sound from that referred to by 
previous writers when they use the expression. The fol- 
lowing are his remarks : ' A formatur a medio linguae ad 
concavum palati paululum elevato. In his can possum, 
pass by praetereo, a corripitur ; in cast j&cio, past pro passed 
praeteritus, producitur. Frequentissimus auditur hie sonus 
apud Anglos, qui semper hoc modo pronunciant a Latinum ; 
ut in amabam. . . . Hunc sonum correptum produc- 
tum semper scribimus per a ; at huic characteri praeterea 
adhibentur sonus unus et alter: prior, qui pro vocali ejus 
longa habetur ut in cane . . . posterior ut in was sect, 
septima sub o gutturalem.' 

This seems to imply that can and pass had (as), cast, 



314 ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION IN THE MODERN PERIOD 

past (se). Further, the symbol a also expresses a sound 
which is generally held to be the ordinary long sound (se), 
but which is not the same ; this other sound occurs in cane. 
Incidentally we may notice that Cooper pronounced was, 
not (waez), but (woz). What was the third sound expressed 
hya? 

Writing of e, he says : ' e formatur a lingua magis elevata 
et expansa, quam in a proprius ad extremitatem, unde 
concavum palati minus redditur sonus magis acutus ; ut 
in ken video. . . . Vera majusce soni productio scribitur 
per a atque a longum falso denominatur ; ut in cane, canna ; 
wane, deflecto ; and ante ge ut age, setas ; in cseteris autem 
vocabulis {ni fallor) omnibus ubi e quiescens ad finem 
syllabse post a, adjicitur ; u gutturalis . . . inseritur 
post a ut in name, nomen, quasi scriberetur na-um dis- 
syllabum.' ) 

Here we have the statement that the sound in cane, wane 
was the long of that in Jcen, and that in the two former 
words it was falsely called ' long a? This clearly implies 
that the third vowel sound expressed by the symbol a was 
a mid-front, presumably, since it is the long of that in hen, 
a slack vowel = (e). A further statement is that when this 
long sound stood before certain consonants a vowel glide 6 u 
gutturalis,' was developed after it. Writers of this period 
nearly always mean by short u an unrounded vowel, prob- 
ably very similar to that in Present-day but, and this sound, 
whatever it may have been when stressed (probably high- 
back-tense), may have actually existed in Cooper's day as 
a glide vowel, or, as is, perhaps, more probable, the sound 
actually intended here is the mix-mixed-slack (a). This 
implies a pronunciation (kean) (neam), etc. 



THE THREE < A '-SOUNDS 



315 



Cooper's lists illustrating the different sounds of a are 
as follows : 



a brevis(=se). 


a longa ( = 93). 


a exilis (=i). 


bar, vectis. 


barge, navicula. 


bare, nudus. 


blab, effutio. 


blast, flatus. 


blazon, divulgo. 


cap, pileum. 


carking, anxietas. 


cape, capa. 


car, carrus. 


carp, carpo. 


care, cura. 


cat, catus. 


cast, j actus. 


case, theca. 


dash, allido. 


dart, jaculum. 


date, dactylus. 


flash, fulguro. 


flasket, corbus gluus. 


flake, flocculus. 


gash, caesura. 


gasp, oscito. 


gate, janua. 


grand, grandis. 


grant, concedo. 


grange, villa. 


land, terra. 


lanch, solvo. 


lane, viculus. 


mash, farrago. 


mask, larva. 


mason, lapidarius. 


pat, aptus. 


path, semita. 


pate, caput. 
tares, lolia. 


tar, pix fluida. 


tart, scriblita. 



Among words which have the diphthong (ea), Cooper 
includes many which in M.E. had a diphthong ai, which 
was evidently levelled, in his speech under M.E. a. The 
£9 list is : 



bain, balneum. 
bane, venenuum. 
main, magnus. 
mane, juba. 
plain, manifestus. 
plane, lavigo. 



hail, grando. 
hale, traho. 
lay'n, jacui. 
lane, viculus. 
spaid, castratus. 
le, ligo. 



maid, virgo. 
made, factus. 
pain, dolor. 
pane, quadra. 
tail, cauda. 
tale, fabula. 



Miege (1688) confirms Cooper's account of e in certain 
words : 

6 Dans la langue Anglaise cette voyelle A s'appelle et 
se prononce ai. Lorsqu'elle est jointe avec d'autres lettres, 
elle retient ce meme son dans la plupart des Mots ; mais 
il se prononce tantot long, tantot bref. L'a se prononce 
en ai long generalement lorsqu'il est suivi immediatement 



316 ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION IN THE MODERN PERIOD 

d'une con sonne, et cTiine e final. Exemple : fare, tare, care, 
grace, fable, qui se prononcent ainsi faire, taire, caire, 
graice, faible? 

Miege notes that ' regard se prononce regaird. . . . 
Dans le mot de Jane Fa se prononce en e masculin, 
Dgene.' 

The eighteenth - century authorities are very unsatis- 
factory in their statements regarding the fate of the three 
seventeenth-century sounds (ae, a?, e). Apparently they 
were all preserved, (e) becoming tense late in the century, 
and ce tending to be retracted towards a, which sound 
it has to-day in Standard English. In Sheridan's Dic- 
tionary, however (1780), we still find only (pee]?), etc., and 
no (a) sounds. In the course of the nineteenth century 
(e) was diphthongized in Standard English to (ei), in which 
the first element is half tense. In the Cockney dialect of 
London, and often in Liverpool and Manchester, this has 
become (aei) or (ai), according to the social class of the 
speaker. 

We may now summarize the results of the foregoing 
inquiry. M.E. a and a were preserved on the whole 
throughout the sixteenth century, although the fronting 
process may have begun here and there before the end of 
the century. In the seventeenth century the fronting 
process was completed, (a) becoming (as), as at present, (a) 
becoming (je). In the course of the century (se) was raised 
to (£). Before certain combinations (se) was lengthened 
during this century. This lengthening does not affect all 
words of the same class, therefore we must suppose that in 
some cases forms from other dialects were adopted by 
speakers of the Standard language. It seems to take 






HISTORY OF M.E. A SUMMARIZED 317 

place chiefly before s and r followed by another consonant, 
and before (]> and ft) — e.g., (kaert, gsesp, pse]?). 

This new long (se) was not levelled under the old long 
(from M.E. a), since this had already become (t). Concrete 
examples of the development of M.E. d are : 



M.E. a\ra$er) "cent. (se)J (rseSer) (r£e'5er)\ 18th 19th \(ra59r). 



bat \ = 17th \(baet). 

rafter/ cent. (se)j (rse'Ser) (rae'Ser)\ _ 

ba\> (biej?) -==(bge}?) /cent, (ge); cent. {a)J(ba\>). 

(face ] n , (fses) ) (fes) \ 18th (fes) ^| 19th (feis). 
M.E. a\name\= , (naem)/ (nem) V < cent, (nem) V cent. (neim). 
{rctfSer) cenT " (reefer) < (refier) J s-e (refter) J ei (reiSa). 

The origin of the M.E. doublets rafter, rafter, f after, f after, 
have already been explained in the chapter on M.E. sound - 
changes {ante, p. 271). Present-day (a) is never derived 
from M.E. a, which is always (az), but from M.E. a with 
seventeenth-century lengthening. 

The seventeenth and eighteenth century sound (se) is 
still preserved in many of the Southern English dialects, 
and in the Irish brogue, where such pronunciations as 
(keerd), (bse|>) are usual. In the Northern dialects the 
fronting of M.E. a was never fully carried out, and (a) is 
either preserved as a full-back or is only slightly advanced. 
The seventeenth-century lengthening does not seem to 
have affected these dialects, which have the same vowel in 
(man, ba]>, ka(r)d), etc. 

The Present-day forms ' clerk ' (klak) ; ' Derby ' (dabi) ; 
(h.a]>) hearth ; (hat), heart, may be discussed here. Origin- 
ally, both of these words had M.E. er — clerk; Derbi. But 
in M.E. e before r was often made into a, doubtless through 
an intermediate stage (ae). This has happened in star, 
far, where the old spelling has been retained. In these 



318 ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION IN THE MODERN PERIOD 

words we have the sixteenth-century (a), seventeenth- 
century (as), then (§§), which, as we have seen, becomes (a) 
in Late English. Our pronunciation of clerk and Derby, 
hearty hearth, etc., goes back, in each case, to a M.E. (a), 
which has regularly become (a) in Late English by the 
stages mentioned. The spelling in these words is that of 
another M.E. type, with (e) or (e), which before r becomes 
(a) quite regularly in Late English. The provincial or 
' vulgar 1 (dAbi kUk, 1iaJ>) go back to the M.E. (tr) type. 
In other words, Standard English preserves this type ; thus 
(sAvant), servant; (hxd), heard; (Un), learn, are derived from 
M.E. pronunciations with (cr, er). In eighteenth-century 
colloquial literature these words are sometimes spelled lam, 
sarvant, which expresses a then common pronunciation (lgern, 
servant), etc., and these forms are established by seven- 
teenth and eighteenth century authorities. In polite speech, 
however, only the (a) forms survive in these words. The 
spelling Clark in the proper name, of course, implies the 
same type as that which is now received as ' correct.' It is 
one of those sports of fashion so common in the history of 
a Class Dialect that (klXk, d\bi) should now be considered 
vulgar, and (savant) equally so. 

M.E. (e) and (e) and (e). — The short, slack M.E. (e) has 
survived in English pronunciation to the present day. It 
occurs in such words as men, better, set, etc., and in friend 
(frend), where it is the result of a M.E. shortening of e, 
which subsequently lost its tenseness, probably also in 
breath, from M.E. (brtj?) from (br£j>), from earlier broe\. 
The unshortened form is heard in ' breathe/ M.E. brlften. 

The symbol e in M.E. also denoted two distinct long 
vowels, as we have seen (above, p. 259, etc.). 



HISTORY OF M.£. TENSE E 319 

1 . (e), which had two origins : (a) O.E. cc, M.E. hep, from 
O.E. hw]>; (b) O.E. e, lengthened during M.E. period in 
open syllables : beren ' bear, 1 O.E. beran; mete, ' meat,' O.E. 
mete. 

2. (c), which sprang from — (a), O.E. e, whatever its origin, 
as in her, ' here '; he, ' he '; sed (now W. Sax.), ' seed '; quen, 
O.E. cwen ; (b) O.E. eo, as in be, i bee," O.E. beo ;fre, 'free ; 
O.E. freo. (c) Kentish e (from y), lengthened in M.E. 
open syllables, as in evel, ' evil, 1 O. Kt. <?/e/, W.S., etc.', 
yfel. (d) O.E. e, from original e lengthened before -Id, etc., 
during the O.E. period, as in M.E. scheld, ' shield,' O.E. 
sceld, earlier sceld; M.JZ.jeld 4 field 1 ,- O.'E.feld, earlier feld. 
(e) Anglo-French e as in chefe, chief e, apperen, appieren. 

We may conveniently deal first with the development of 
M.E. tense e. The earliest sixteenth-century authorities 
show that before the middle of the century this sound had 
already been raised to the high-front -tense (l). The words 
which appear in the pages of these writers as having un- 
mistakably (l) are : he, we, me, she, bee, bier, peer, cheese, 
chief, feld, ease, lief, sheep, trees, queen, friend, feet, sheet, 
meet, geese, deed, zveary, greet, ween, green, to wet (Levins 1 
Manipulus). 

These all agree with the Present-day Standard English, 
except friend — at present (fraid), which is from a M.E. 
shortened form — though Scotch has (frind) — and to wet. 
Our (wft) is a M.E. shortening of the O.E. wcetan, M.E. 
(xvlten), and apparently preserves the Saxon form, whereas 
sixteenth-century (wit), like Mod. Sc. ' weet," goes back to an 
Old Anglian wetayi, which preserved its tense vowel in M.E. 
and underwent no shortening — at any rate not until quite 
recently. Whenever we find evidence of this raising to (l) 



320 ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION IN THE MODERN PERIOD 

in sixteenth century, we must assume a form with tense (e) 
in M.E. Most words of this class were spelled already in 
the sixteenth century with ee, in distinction to those with 
M.E. (l), written ea. The sound thus developed under- 
goes no further change beyond the fact that in words like 
6 bier ' a vowel glide has developed after the (1) before the 
r, which was subsequently lost in pronunciation, while (i) 
has become (i) in Standard English : (hid), etc. 

This raising of (e) to (1) could not have taken place 
until the old I of O, and M.E. had been diphthongized, 
otherwise the new (l) would have shared its fate. 

The Treatment of M.E. Slack (e). — After the raising of 
(c), (e) was gradually made tense, and thus a new (e) arose. 
The raising of this sixteenth-century (e) to (l) did not, 
apparently, take place in the received pronunciation before 
the eighteenth century, but it must have occurred among 
some speakers as early as the first quarter of the seventeenth 
century, since Gill complains of a foppish pronunciation 
of meat as (mit) instead of (met), and (liv), leave, instead of 
(lev). This is not merely a case of an old-fashioned speaker 
objecting to a new pronunciation which was already well 
established, since the change did not become widespread 
till much later. It is impossible to say whether this seven- 
teenth-century raising of the new (e) had its origin in a 
provincial or a class dialect, but in any case it is a good 
example of the fact that what is deemed, at one period, an 
affected pronunciation often represents a genuine tendency 
of language, which later on becomes universal. 

It is interesting to note that the Irish brogue retains 
the seventeenth and eighteenth century pronunciations of 
M.E. (e), as (e) ; (het), heat, (se), sea, (tret), treat, (bet) beat, 



THE (AT) AND (01) SOUNDS 321 

(konsel), conceal, (del), deal, etc., are all regular seventeenth 
and eighteenth century pronunciations, which are still 
heard in Ireland. 

Standard English retains (e) as (ei) in a few words : great, 
break — where, perhaps, the r may have prevented raising — 
and steak, which must, perhaps, be regarded as a provincial 
survivor. Curiously enough, (brik) is quite a common pro- 
nunciation in Ireland to-day, and this form and (grit) are 
both recorded for the eighteenth century. The vowel in 
head, dead, bread, red, etc., which in M.E. was (e), is the 
result of an Early Modern shortening. The unshortened 
forms are heard in Sc. (hid, did), etc., where the normal 
eighteenth-century raising has taken place. The shortening 
of the vowel in these words which is common in Sc. must 
be quite recent. 

M.E. I and oi. — The former sound has invariably become 
the diphthong (ai) in Present-day English. That the 
process must have begun in the first quarter of the sixteenth 
century is certain, as we have already indicated, from the 
fact that Palsgrave (1530) distinctly identifies the pro- 
nunciation of M.E. (e) with that of French 7, which latter, 
he says, is pronounced 'almost as we sound e with vs.' It is 
curious that, although Palsgrave implies a difference between 
French and English I, he does not definitely suggest that 
the latter is a diphthong, and neither Smith, Bullokar, nor 
Gill hint at all clearly at diphthongal pronunciation. On 
the other hand, in the Hymn to the Virgin I is trans- 
literated ei in ei — I — abeiding, abiding, Kreist, Christ ; and 
Salesbury writes vein for vine, ddein, thine, deitses (daitjez) 
for the provincial pronunciation of ' ditch," 1 etc. Hart also 
writes ei — reid bei, ' ride by, 1 which leaves no doubt that 

21 



322 ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION IN THE MODERN PERIOD 

these writers recognised the diphthongal character of the 
sound. In the next century the first element is identified by 
Wilkins as the sound in but, which, as we shall see, had in 
his day already a pronunciation not far removed from the 
present sound, probably that of rather a higher back vowel. 
Holder states that the sound is a diphthong composed of a, 
i, or e, i. Cooper gives the same account of the sound as 
Wilkins, and Miege says the best way of describing the 
sound is by the two vowels a and i. 

An important point is that both Cooper and Jones 
identify the sound of I in wine, guide, with that of oi in 
joint, broil, etc. In this connection we may note that 
Pope rhymes join with line. (Cf. p. 67 above.) 

The meaning of all this is that M.E. I from early in the 
sixteenth century underwent a process of diphthongization, 
and by the last half of the seventeenth century had reached 
the stage (ai) or (ai), in which stage it was identical with 
the contemporary pronunciation of the old French diph- 
thong oi (in joy, join, etc.). This accounts for Pope's 
rhyme above. Henceforth the normal development of both 
classes of words would, of course, have been the same, and 
Present-day English shows the last stage in that develop- 
ment in the diphthong (ai) in (waif, lain, fain, taim), etc., 
wife, line, jine, time, etc. In the other class of words, 
however, those with old oi, the old diphthong has been 
artificially reintroduced through the influence of the spell- 
ing ; hence line and join no longer rhyme in Standard 
English. In Vulgar and Dialectal English, however, the 
old oi has pursued its normal course of development, and 
has become (ai), just as old 7 has. Hence we get the 
'vulgar 1 (hail, dzain, ail), etc., which comic writers express 



THE TWO <0> SOUNDS 323 

by the spellings bile,jine, He, for boil, join, oil, etc. Here 
again the Irish brogue preserves the eighteenth-century 
sound, and has (ai) or (ai) in both classes of words, which 
is the explanation of the popular belief, in this country, that 
an Irishman calls himself what the humorous writers spell 
as 6 Oirishman] and that he pronounces (woif, foiv, loin) for 
wife, five, shine, etc. The eighteenth-century pronuncia- 
tion of this diphthong is approximately preserved also in 
Oxfordshire and Berkshire. 

M.E. 5. — The symbol o represented two distinct long 
vowels in M.E. : (a) The old tense 6, as in god, ' good '; 
blod, * blood '; sona, ( soon,' etc. ; (b) sl slack vowel with an 
o-quality, and which had two origins : (1) the rounding ot 
O.E. a, as in ston, ' stone,'' O.E. stan ; old, O.E. did ; and 
(2) the lengthening of O.E. o in open syllables, as in \rote, 
6 throat,** O.E. \rbtu ; open, O.E. open, etc. The slack 
sound was often written oa in M.E., but not with perfect 
regularity, and the tense was frequently written oo to 
express length, but this symbol is very often written for 
the long slack also, as in stoon, etc. 

Development of M.E. tense o. — This sound, originally 
probably the mid- back- tense-round, as in Modern French 
beau, was gradually over-rounded, passing through the 
stage of the Modern Swedish 5 in sol, ' sun,' which, to 
unaccustomed ears, has almost the acoustic effect of (u), 
and then raised until it became a fully-formed (u). 

The sixteenth-century writers on the subject leave no 
doubt that this stage was reached by the middle of that 
century. It is frankly described by the best authorities 
as an (u)- sound. This sound, when once developed, 
either (1) remains until the present time, as in spoon, root, 

21—2 



324 ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION IN THE MODERN PERIOD 

fool, shoe, loose, etc. ( = spun, rut, ful, Ju, lus) ; or (2) it 
has undergone (in Standard English) a recent (early nine- 
teenth-century [?]) shortening, in which case it also becomes 
slack, as in good, book, wood, foot, etc. ( gwd, bwk, w«d, 
fwt) ; or (3) it underwent shortening to (it) already in the 
sixteenth century. The fate of this sixteenth-century 
shortening we shall discuss under the treatment of six- 
teenth-century and M.E. (ti). 

[Note. — Smith (1568) says that the Scots pronounce (y) in 
cook, good, blood, hood, flood, book, took, evidently referring 
to the same sound as is still heard in Sc. as the represen- 
tative of O.E. tense o.] 

M.E. slack o. — This sound, probably the mid -back-slack- 
round, was preserved in early Mod. Eng. This is con- 
firmed by the identification of it with Welsh 5, with the 
Italian 'open 1 o, and as the long sound of short English o. 
Smith (1568) gives the pairs smock — smoke, hop — hope, sop 
— soap, not — note, rob — robe, etc., as showing the short and 
long of the same vowel. Florio (161 1 ) identifies the sound 
of Italian ' open ' o with that in English bone, dog, God, 
rod, stone, tone, etc. 

Gill (1621) recognises only one o-sound — short, as in coll, 
long, as in coal. Up to this point, after the raising and 
over-rounding of the old tense o to (u), no tense 6 existed 
in English, only (o). In 1653, however, Wallis recognises 
two long o-sounds, one identical with French au (5), the 
other long a variety of that in folly, cost, etc. The former 
of these sounds is, of course, the tense 6, and has developed 
out of the long slack of the former generation. It is men- 
tioned by Wallis as occurring in one, none, whole, coal, boat ; 
and Wilkins also mentions an o, obviously the same sound, 



THE RISE OF THE < OBSCURE' SOUND M.E. U 325 

which has no corresponding short sound in English, which 
is found in boat,foale, vote, mote, pole, rode. Wallis^s one, 
none (on, n5n) belong, of course, to a different type of 
pronunciation from that used to-day in these words. 
Watties other long o-sound is a new slack o, developed 
from an earlier (au), which will be discussed later. 

The new middle seventeenth- century long tense o just 
described, derived from the earlier long slack, was preserved 
in English until it was diphthongized to its present various 
diphthongal forms in the nineteenth century. 

As regards M.E. o little need be said, as it has changed 
but little, beyond being lowered, perhaps, during the 
eighteenth century, from a mid to a low -back- slack- 
round. 

M.E. u. — This was, in all probability, a tense vowel, 
and remained unchanged down to the end of the sixteenth 
century. During the sixteenth century the number of 
words containing this sound was increased by the addition 
of several with a shortened form of the new (u) from M.E. 
tense (6). Among words with original u which are men- 
tioned by the sixteenth-century writers as still retaining 
this sound are buck, gut, lust, suffer, thunder, all of which 
are transliterated with w by Salesbury (bwck, gwt, etc.); 
but, luck, mud, full, pull, etc., and among those with the 
new (u) from (6) for which a shortened pronunciation is 
established are : good, flood, look, blood, book. 

During the seventeenth century short u was gradually 
unrounded in all those words in which it occurred. This 
is made clear by the statements of the authorities, some of 
whom are at a loss to describe the new sound. Wallis 
says short u has an ' obscure sound ' which resembles that 



326 ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION IN THE MODERN PERIOD 

of the final syllable of French serviteur ; Wilkins describes 
it as 'a simple letter, a pert, sonorous guttural, being 
framed by a free emission of breath from the throat.' 
Holder gives a very definite account of what we should 
now call a high-back-unrounded vowel, saying that that u 
is an (u) sound ' in which the lip does not concur, as in cut, 
full ' (kat, fal) . This can only mean unrounded (u). This 
is the ancestor of our present sound, which has, however, 
been lowered from a high to a mid-back. It should be 
noted that in Present-day Standard the old (u) is still 
kept, as a rule, after lip consonants (put, pull, bull, full, 
etc.), though now pronounced slack, having probably been 
restored, if, indeed, it actually ever was unrounded, before 
the tongue position was lowered. This is not universally 
the case, however, as is seen from but, mud, punt, etc., 
which have the unrounded sound. 

The seventeenth-century authorities are not always in 
agreement with Present-day polite usage as regards the 
distribution of the unrounded vowel, especially in words 
where it represents the shortened sixteenth-century (u) from 
tense (6). The following pronunciations are all recorded 
in the seventeenth century: from (bazsm), 'bosom,' (fat), 
'foot,' (gad), 'good,' (had), 'hood/ (sat), ' soot,' (stad), 
'stood,' (tak), 'took,' (wad), 'wood,' (wal), 'wool,' all of 
which would be regarded as vulgar provincialisms by 
educated society to-day. They may, of course, still be 
heard in the dialects. The Standard pronunciation of to- 
day, in the above words, namely (fwt), etc., is, of course, a 
later shortening, as already pointed out, of a seventeenth- 
century type with (u) or perhaps with (u), since the 
shortened types are also recorded in late seventeenth 



THREEFOLD PRONUNCIATION OF OLD TENSE 327 

century, and side by side with (fat), which, by the way, is 
designated barbare by Cooper, we get also (fat) and (fut). 

On the other hand, (u) is recorded by Cooper in blood, 
Jlood, brother, where we now have (a). In any case, it 
would appear that fashion has decided which type of an 
old (M.E.) tense o-word shall be considered as correct at 
the present day. Thus in ' spoon ' (spun) we have six- 
teenth-century (ii) preserved ; in ' book ' (buk) we have a 
seventeenth or eighteenth century shortening of this (u) ; 
and in blood (blad), (matte), ' mother,' (braSa), < brother, 1 
we have representatives of a sixteenth-century shortening 
of the new (u), which, as we have seen, underwent un- 
rounding in the following century. 

There is no reason, except fashion, why (blad) should be 
polite, but (fat) vulgar, nor why, on the other hand, (bk^d) 
or (blud) should have vanished from educated speech. 

The seventeenth-century unrounding was not carried out 
equally in all dialects. Thus, in Lancashire sixteenth- 
century u was partially unrounded and lowered, and the 
characteristic tense sound which results is used in all cases 
to represent M.E. and sixteenth-century u — that is, equally 
in cut, pull, foot, the full unrounded vowel of the Standard 
dialect being unknown, and also the fully rounded high- 
back-slack. Those sixteenth-century (u)s which were not 
shortened during that century remain unchanged, as in 
(kuk, buk), etc. 

In other forms of English, again, such as some of the 
Yorkshire dialects, sixteenth-century (u) undergoes no 
unrounding at all, but remains everywhere as (u), with 
loss of tenseness — e.g., full, cut, nut, etc. (cf. Wright, 
Windfall Dialect, § 111). 



328 ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION IN THE MODERN PERIOD 

In Scotch dialects sixteenth-century (ii) has been un- 
rounded, and has become the mid-back-tense, as in 
Standard English. In the Standard English as spoken in 
Scotland the slack sound of short (u) is unknown, and the 
archaic short tense sound is preserved, full and fool both 
having the same sound, namely high-back-tense-round, 
short. 

In the genuine Sc. vernacular O.E. tense 6 underwent a 
totally different development already in the M.E. period 
from that which it followed in Southern English. 

M.E. u. — Just before M.E. tense 6 was raised to (u), 
the original u underwent the beginnings of a process of 
diphthongization. From Palsgrave's remarks it would 
appear that already in his day there was a very slight 
degree of diphthongization, sufficient to distinguish the 
sound from the newly-developed (u), but not enough to con- 
fuse it with the older (au) in (grawnt), 'grant, 1 (faul), 'fall 1 
(see below, pp. 333-336). The process of diphthongization 
probably consisted of, first, a sudden decrease of stress 
during the utterance of (ii), thus giving (uu) or (mt); then 
the dissimilation of the two elements, possibly by partially 
unrounding and lowering the first element to (o), giving 
(on) ; then the complete unrounding of the first element to 
(iu) ; then shortening and slacking to (au), which is ap- 
proximately the present pronunciation in the Standard 
dialect. Various vulgarisms and provincial forms of this 
diphthong exist, such as (seu, eu). In some dialects 
monophthonging, apparently from the (au) stage, has 
taken place — e.g., Windhill Dialect has, etc., from (haws). 
On the other hand, the Dialect of Addlingtou (Lanes) has 
(bren, his, 5, end), etc., = ' brown," 'house, 1 'how,' 'hound, 1 



M E. (Y) BECOMES (JU) 329 

where the monophthongization has apparently taken 
place from the (eu) stage. (Cf. Hargreaves, Addlington 
Dialect, § 12.) There is no reason to suppose that 
(eu, aeu) are intermediate stages on the way to (au) ; 
they are, rather, special further developments of that 
sound. 

M.E. y written u. — The sound y — that is, the high-front- 
tense-round — survived throughout the M.E. period. Its 
origins are: (1) O.E. y (in the Southern or Saxon dialects); 
(2) Anglo-French y (written u). There seems no doubt 
that the (y) sound remained in English pronunciation 
down to the middle of the seventeenth century, since 
writers as late as Wallis (1653) identify the 'long u'' in 
muse, tune, lute, dure (endure), mute, view, lieu, with 
French u, that is, of course (y), and Wallis states that 
some also pronounce eu or iu. This would imply that 
there were two pronunciations, a simple (y) and a diph- 
thongized (iy). Price also (1688) suggests a diphthongal 
pronunciation in muse, refuse, etc., ' as if it were composed 
of iw? On the other hand, Wilkins (1688) says that 
Englishmen cannot pronounce French, or, as he calls it, 
' whistling u," 1 since to them, as 6 to all nations among 
whom it is not used, it is of so laborious and difficult pro- 
nunciation that I shall not proceed further to any ex- 
plication of it.' Wilkins transliterates ' communion , as 
(komiunion). Apparently, then, by this time there were 
two old-fashioned types of pronunciation of this sound — 
(iy and y), and the newer pronunciations (ivi and u). 
These sounds represented, not only M.E. y, but also M.E. 
eu, as in (diy), 'dew,' M.E. cleu ; ([k]niy), 'knew,' M.E. 
~kneu ; (bliy), ; blue, 1 M.E. hleu, etc. It seems probable 



330 ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION IN THE MODERN PERIOD 

that the (y) lost its front quality in the third quarter of 
the seventeenth century, so that the two types were (bliu), 
corresponding to earlier (bliy), and blu), corresponding to 
earlier (bly). At the present day, in the Standard lan- 
guage, we have on the one hand (blu), ' blue,' (j?ru), 
4 threw, 1 (rul), ' rule,' etc., and on the other (tjiizdi), 
'tuesday,' (mjuz), 'muse,' (fju), 'few, 1 (stjupid), also 
(stjwpid), ' stupid," (djuk), c duke,' etc., corresponding to 
sixteenth-century (iy) and (y) respectively. In dialectal 
speech different types often exist from those used in the 
Standard, and (duk) from (dyk), (stupid) from (stypid), 
(tuzdi) from (tyzdei), (nu), 'new,' from (ny), are quite 
common. Again, provincial (riul), 'rule,' (bliu), and 
(blju), 'blue,' (friut), ' fruit,' etc., also exist. 

Cure is now variously (kjua, kj?^9, kjoa, and kp), or, in 
those dialects where the r is preserved, (kjur) or (kjuar). 
Wallis indicates the pronunciation (kyr), and Cooper, 
already, (kiuar). The only word which preserves O.E. 
(Saxon) y in the Standard dialect is bruise (bruz), where 
the ui is actually a Southern M.E. spelling for y. 

The dialects of Devonshire and Somerset seem still to 
preserve a sound approximating to the M.E. and sixteenth- 
century (y) to the present day. 

The Middle English Diphthongs. 

M.E. ai and ei. — These diphthongs were often confused 
in Late M.E., to judge by the spelling. The Welsh 
authorities of the sixteenth century make no distinction. 
The Hymn to the Virgin writes ai, ae, ay in away, awae, 
kae, agaynst, and ei only in ddey, ddei. Salesbury trans- 
literates both sounds by ai, ay — vain = 6 vein ' and ' vain '; 



M.E. EI, AI 331 

nayl= i nail.'' Salesbury uses ei for the new diphthong 
from old (I). 

On the other hand, Palsgrave (1530) distinguishes 
between (ei) in obey, grey, in which ' e shall have his dis- 
tinct sound,"' and (ai) in rayne, ' rain,"* payn, ' pain,' fay?ie, 
6 fain,' etc., in which ' a is sounded distinctly, and i shortly 
and confusedly.' Smith (1568) says the distinction be- 
tween the two is very slight, but admits (ei) in feint, 
deinte, peint, fein (verb). He says that certain affected 
women, who wish to appear to speak ' more urbanely, 1 
pronounce (ei) or (ei) not only in words where it is written, 
but also in words with ai, as in dai, wai,mai, tail, fail, pain, 
claim, plai, arai, etc. Of these, wai, ' way,' should, from 
the etymological point of view, have (ei). Smith says the 
first element is short among 4 urbane ? speakers, but that 
country folks pronounce it long, ' with an odious kind of 
sound, fat and greasy to excess, 1 saying daai, paai, etc. 

These remarks surely mean that the distinction between 
ai and ei no longer existed, except, perhaps, artificially, 
through the influence of the spelling. Apparently Smith 
himself pronounced (ai) with the first element very short 
and slightly fronted ; old-fashioned people and country- 
folk said (ai) with a full back vowel in the first element, 
and affected persons and ' silly women, 1 or ' mopseys, 1 as 
they were called, (asi) or even (ei), thus anticipating the 
fashionable pronunciation of a later day. There can be 
no doubt that the pronunciation of the affected persons 
was gaining the day, for Hart, in 1569, recognises no diph- 
thong at all, but gives pre, we, se, etc., for ' pray, 1 4 way, 1 
' say. 1 Gill (1629) strongly condemns ' mopseys 1 in general, 
and Hart in particular, and disapproves of (mtdz) for 



332 ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION IN THE MODERN PERIOD 

(mazds), i maids,'' and (pie) for (plai). Butler (1623) records 
with disapproval the pronunciation (e) in may, nay, play, 
pray, say, stay, fray, slay, pay, bailey, travail. Wallis and 
Wilkins both describe a diphthong that must be intended 
for (aei). Price (1668) admits a diphthong (aei) in a good 
many words with ai and ey, but a single vowel (?) ap- 
parently in many others. Cooper (1685) admits a diph- 
thong in a few words — brain, eight, frail — otherwise ai, ay 
for him has the sound of contemporary a, that is, (ae) or (e), 
and he gives the following words as pairs containing the 
same vowel, long and short respectively : sail — sell, saint — 
sent, tail — tell, taint — tent, which must imply (t) in (s£l), 
4 sail,' etc. 

The result of these somewhat contradictory accounts 
seems to be that M.E. ei, ai were early (in the sixteenth cen- 
tury) levelled under one sound in the best speech, probably 
(ai). The diphthongal character was lost in some dialects, 
retained in others, though whether these were class dialects, 
or associated with a geographical area, we cannot say. 
The Standard language tended more and more to front and 
raise the first element in those cases where diphthongal 
pronunciation remained, and by the end of the seventeenth 
century the monophthongal pronunciation (je), or among 
the younger generation (§), was fully established, so that 
the sound was levelled under that of M.E. a, and henceforth 
shared the same development, being gradually tensened to 
(e), which was subsequently diphthongized again to (ei) or 
(ei) in the nineteenth century. 

Many dialects retain to the present day the M.E. vowel 
(ai) recorded as that of country folks in the seventeenth 
century, in words like (tail, -pail), ' tail/ ' pail," etc. 



M.E. (AU) BECOMES (g) 333 

Early Modern English au. — This sound existed in the 
sixteenth century in words of several classes. They were 
mostly inherited from M.E., and to this there is only one 
possible exception. The (au) diphthongs, which are cer- 
tainly of M.E. origin, occurred in the following conditions: 

1. M.E. au or aw from O.E. -ag-: M.E. same, 'saw,' 
O.E. sagu ; M.E. drawen, 'draw,' O.E. dragan ; from 
O.E. -aw-: M.E. clawe, 'claw,' O.E. dawn; O.E. -ah-: 
M.E. laughen, O.E. hlahhan. 

%. M.E. au from Anglo-Fr. au: cause, 'cause.' 

3. In the combination original an followed by another 
consonant in words of Anglo-Fr. or Fr. origin : daunger, 
'danger'; aungel, 'angel'; haunt, jaundice, etc. 

(au) further occurred in stressed syllables where a was 
followed by / in words both of English and French origin : 
all, sixteenth-century (au\), fall, sixteenth-century (faul), 
call, sixteenth - century (kaul). According to Sweet 
(H.E.S., 784), this diphthong was developed in the Early 
Modern period. 

The history of this (au) from the sixteenth century 
onwards is clear. The diphthong persisted throughout 
the century, but towards the end, the pronunciation (3) — 
i.e., low-back-tense-round — or something very like it, 
appears to be already established. The process of change 
must have been : the first element was rounded through 
the influence of the (u), giving (3u), then the second element 
was absorbed, and the sound was monophthongized to (5) 
and tensened to (5), its present form. From the seven- 
teenth century onwards (3) is the only representative of 
the old (au). 

Sixteenth-century examples are (haul, haul, wawl, iau\, 



334 ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION IN THE MODERN PERIOD 

kau\, hau, lawful, straw, mau, tjawns, grawnt, dzawndis, 
lawns), etc. = ball, hall, wall, fall, call, haw, lawful, straw, 
maw, chance, grant, jaundice, lance. The (ou) stage is 
occasionally recorded in the seventeenth century, but, pre- 
sumably, did not last long. In that century most of 
these words are recorded with (5), but occasionally, appa- 
rently, with (ou), written ou by Cooper and oou by Gill, 
which probably represents the intermediate stage. 

Of the words mentioned above with (au) before n, 
however, only jaundice exists with (o) in the Standard 
English of the present day, and many speakers, including 
the present writer, pronounce (dzandis) here with (a), as 
in all the other words in the list with a nasal. 

In several other words of this group we have doublets in 
the polite pronunciation of to-day — e.g., (honj) and (hanj), 
'haunch'; (lonj) and (lanS),as well as (laenj), ' launch '; (v5nt) 
and (vant), ' vaunt 1 ; (londri) and (landri), ' laundry '; (hont) 
and (hant), ' haunt '; also in the name Saunders or Sanders, 
which is pronounced according to the taste or traditions 
of its owner (sondaz) or (sandaz). Dance is pronounced 
both (dans) and (daens), (dons) having disappeared ; lance 
= (lans) or (laens), but there is no (Ions), and the name 
Launcelot is never (lonsilot), only (lansilot) or (laensilot). 

The first point to be clear about is that the pronuncia- 
tion (5) in any of these words represents an older {au). 
But (au) or its descendant (5) were not the only forms in 
use in the seventeenth century. Side by side with these 
we find also doublets with (ae) which are sometimes given 
by the same authorities as alternatives to the (o) pro- 
nunciation. Thus we find (dsent, flasnt, haent, dzaent, tasnt) 
= daunt, flaunt, haunt, jaunt, taunt. These would appear 



DEVELOPMENT OF M.E. -(AN)- AND -(AL)- 335 

to be the ancestors of the modern forms with (a). They 
gave rise to two types — one which retained (ae), another in 
which it was lengthened to (se). The short forms remain, 
and correspond to the present-day (dsens, laenj)? etc. ; 
the long forms develop (a) in the late eighteenth century, 
and are therefore the direct ancestors of (lanj, landrz), etc. 

The existence of the types (laenj, lonj) side by side in 
the seventeenth century shows that by the side of (lawn$), 
etc., which gave rise to the latter, forms such as (l«n$), the 
ancestor of the former, must have existed, although not 
recorded, in the sixteenth century. This proves that in 
M.E. the Anglo-French combination -an- before a con- 
sonant was not universally diphthongized to (aun), but 
that a type -(an)- also existed. This probability is also 
suggested by the fluctuation of M.E. spelling, which writes 
both haunten and hanten. Non -diphthongized forms also 
existed of the -at- combinations. Present-day (kaf), 
s calf,' (kam), ' calm,' (kwdm), ' qualm,' (sam), ' psalm, 1 
(haf ), ' half, 1 etc., are from eighteenth-century (ksef), 
seventeenth - century (kasf), sixteenth - century (kalf and 
kaf), and so on with the others. The pronunciation 
(kwom), which is sometimes heard, of course represents a 
doublet (kwaulm). Scotch (hof ), etc., is the representative 
of sixteenth-century (hautf ). 

Present-day English has (lafta, draft) by the side of 
(tot, f ot), ' laughter, draught, taught, aught. 1 Here, 
again, we have the survivals of two distinct types : (lafta), 
etc., comes from eighteenth-century (ljeftor), from (laeftar), 
from lafter). This may well be a M.E. treatment of (h), 
in which case there would be no diphthonging. Those 
speakers, on the other hand, who said (lahter) developed 



336 ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION IN THE MODERN PERIOD 

the form (ku[h]ter), which is, indeed, recorded for the 
sixteenth century, together with its descendant (la[h]ter) 
later on. This is the form apparently represented by our 
traditional spelling. This type still survives in Scotch, 
(tot) is the normal development of M.E. tdhte, and in this 
word it would seem that no doublet with (f ) survives. 

M.E. ou. — The vowel in thought, brought, daughter, 
etc., which represents M.E. o, with a glide vowel developed 
before h, as in the case of M.E. -ah-, has apparently passed 
through an (ou) stage, at which point it must have been 
levelled with the earlier (au), or the series may have been 
(ou) with slack o, (o) with long slack o after absorption 
of u, and the levelling of such a long vowel with (5) is a 
natural tendency. 

The Consonants in the Modern Period. 

On the whole, but little change has taken place in the 
pronunciation of the consonants since the sixteenth cen- 
tury. There are, however, a few points which deserve 
notice. 

The symbols -gh- medially or finally were pronounced, 
according to the nature of the preceding vowel, as a front 
or back open voiceless consonant (h). That this had in 
some dialects a lip modification, when back, is evident from 
the fact that in a large number of words in Standard 
English it has become pure (f). In words where it repre- 
sented a Front open consonant, and in a few where it was 
Back, (h) remained, apparently with a very slight con- 
sonantal friction, well into the seventeenth century, in 
the pronunciation of some speakers. It seems probable 
that in most words with back (h) two types of pronuncia- 



CHANGES IN CONSONANT SOUNDS 337 

tion existed in the sixteenth century — (lifter) and (lahter), 
(boft) and (boht), 4 laughter,' ' bought,' etc. At any rate, 
both of these types are proved to have existed in the above 
words and in many others, while the evidence of the 
Modern dialects, taken together with the Standard language, 
would greatly extend the list. Of course, no (u) glide 
was developed in the (f) types, and there are consequently 
no examples of the combination (-of-) in these words, unless, 
indeed, it exists in some of the popular dialects, in which 
case it is the result of a blending of two types — the vowel 
of one and the consonant of the other. 

Initial kn-, gn-. — The combination -Jen- retained the 
initial stop, at any rate until the seventeenth century. 
From the testimony of the authorities it seems probable 
that n was unvoiced in this position, and the (k) lost. 
Cooper says that knave is pronounced like hnave, which 
seems to imply a voiceless n. In the late seventeenth and 
early eighteenth centuries the authorities are at variance 
as to the pronunciation of gn-, Jones making it ordinary 
(voiced) ?i, while Lediard describes voiceless n. Possibly 
gn- and kn- had both been levelled under the latter 
sound, in which case we might conclude that in the early 
eighteenth century the voiceless pronunciation still existed, 
while the new voiced n was coming in. 

Initial wr~. — The w was still heard down to the begin- 
ning of the eighteenth century. It still remains in this 
position in certain Scotch dialects, as (v) — e.g., vrlt, 
6 write,' in Aberdeenshire. 

Loss of r. — This is, perhaps, one of the most consider- 
able changes that has taken place in recent English, 
especially the Standard dialect, r is lost medially before 

22 



338 ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION IN THE MODERN PERIOD 

consonants, and finally unless the next word in the breath- 
group begins with a vowel. With the loss of r certain 
modifications have occurred in the preceding vowels : 

(1) Development of vowel murmur, as in (faia, biad) ; 

(2) the levelling of several distinct vowels under (a), as in 
(bivd, wXd, Hn, wahi, hxd), or under (5), as in (hod, mo, pjo). 



CHAPTER XV 

THE STUDY OF PRESENT-DAY ENGLISH 

Although it has been found convenient, as a matter of 
systematic arrangement, to reserve this subject until the 
end of the present work, it is nevertheless strongly to be 
recommended that, in teaching, the study of actual living 
English should serve as the starting-point of, and as the 
preparation for, the historical study of our language. 

The reason for this must have become apparent from 
the general tenor of this book. The first preparation for 
a competent study of the history of a language is some 
training in phonetics, and for this the native spoken lan- 
guage must serve as a basis. The first lessons in accurate 
observation and analysis of speech sounds must be learned, 
as has been repeatedly pointed out, from one's own speech, 
and that of one's associates. 

From the study of the sounds of his own language, the 
student will naturally proceed to examine the structure, 
the accidence, and syntax of the spoken form of English. 
The methods of such an investigation have been exempli- 
fied in Mr. Sweet's Primer of Spoken English, 1900, and 
this admirable work may serve as a model to the teacher 
who conducts a class in the subject, though it must natur- 
ally be borne in mind that just as Mr. Sweet has described 

339 22—2 



340 THE STUDY OF PRESENT-DAY ENGLISH 

his own pronunciation, so the student must learn to observe 
and describe his own, noting the points of agreement and 
of difference between his own speech habits and those of 
his associates, and between that set forth in the Primer. 

When at least some knowledge of the facts of contem- 
porary English has been gained, the next step is to inquire 
how they arose ; and to answer this question involves an 
inquiry into the earlier forms of our language. For this, 
one trained to observe the facts of actually existing speech 
has the best kind of preparation. He has been brought 
face to face with the realities of language in its spoken 
form ; he has learnt to recognise that linguistic study is 
primarily concerned with what is uttered and heard ; he 
has acquired to some extent the power of understanding 
what is meant by sound change ; he has found from ob- 
servation that various factors are at work in modifying 
the speech of the individual; he knows something of 
analogy ; he has seen that speech habits vary from indi- 
vidual to individual, and from community to community. 
Thus, from a systematic and intelligent study of the spoken 
language, the beginner has been made familiar with many 
of the facts and general principles which it is essential to 
know and understand in order to grasp the vital points of 
linguistic development. 

The Relation of Written and Spoken English. 

The first ' vulgar error ' which it is necessary to dispel 
is the belief that good speakers, in ordinary conversation, 
merely reproduce the language of books, and that the 
Spoken is based upon the Literary language. 

The language of conversation has an independent life, 



SPEAKING AND WRITING 341 

quite apart from the written forms of speech. Literature, 
among a highly-educated community, especially one whose 
ideas and experiences are drawn more from books than 
from life, undoubtedly influences the Spoken language, but 
it is not the main source of this. The source of Spoken 
English is, mainly and primarily, direct tradition of utter- 
ance, passed on from one generation to another. The 
sources of the language of literature are twofold : first, 
literary tradition, and secondly, though equally important, 
the spoken language of the period. The term Spoken 
English has been used in the present case to cover all the 
various forms of the language spoken throughout the 
country ; the term Written Language, to cover at once the 
language of literature proper, and the humbler attempts 
of ordinary speakers to record their ideas in writing instead 
of in speech sounds — to use, that is, symbols of a different 
order to represent what is already a group of symbols. 

It will be convenient, for purposes of contrast, to select 
one type of Written English on one hand, and of Spoken 
English on the other. For the former we take what we 
may call the Literary English proper : that form of the 
written language which is regulated by tradition, which is 
deliberate, self-conscious, and artistic. For the latter 
we take what may be called Standard Spoken English, 
which we have often referred to by this name in earlier 
chapters of this book. 

There is what the present writer believes to be an 
unfortunate habit among some authorities on linguistic 
subjects, of bracketing Literary and Standard Spoken 
English together, under the single name Literary English, 
thereby confusing two distinct phenomena, and suggesting 



342 THE STUDY OF PRESENT-DAY ENGLISH 

the very fallacy which it is so important to avoid, namely, 
that this form of the spoken language is derived from, 
or a reproduction of, the language of literature. The 
idea that those speakers of English who do not speak 
what is technically known as a Dialect, in the special 
sense of the term, are reproducing, or attempting to repro- 
duce, in their speech the language of books is funda- 
mentally erroneous. This would be possible, though not 
desirable, as regards style and vocabulary ; it is impossible 
in the domain of pronunciation. To speak of the sounds 
of Literary English is an absurdity, since what is written 
has no sounds until it is uttered, and then it naturally is 
pronounced according to the speech habits of the particular 
reader. When Dr. Wright, in the English Dialect Gr., 
speaks of the pronunciation of ' Literary English,' he means, 
of course, Standard Spoken English. What we have called 
Standard English, but what may also be called Polite 
English, or, with certain qualifications, simply Good 
English, is as much a reality as the dialect of West 
Somerset or of Windhill ; it has had a normal and natural 
growth from a particular form of fifteenth-century English, 
and although it has, in the course of time, incorporated 
fresh elements from the outside, and discarded others that 
were once part and parcel of it, its history can be traced, 
as we have attempted to show in the former chapter, with 
considerable certainty for more than 300 years. Standard 
English, it is true, is no longer a regional dialect ; it is 
emphatically a class dialect, which is fast absorbing other 
forms of Spoken English. Present-day Standard English, 
as we have already seen, springs originally from the same 
source as the literary dialect — that is, from the London 



RELATION OF LITERARY TO SPOKEN ENGLISH 343 

dialect of the fifteenth century ; and just as this, in its 
written form, at a much earlier date, gained universal 
currency in writings, so the former is now gradually but 
surely gaining ground among all classes and in all areas. 
What the printing press did long ago for the written form, 
modern means of locomotion are doing to-day for the 
spoken. We shall return later to the important question 
of ' good ' and * bad ' in speech ; in the meantime, it may 
be pointed out that the Standard dialect of English is to 
some extent more artificial than other forms of Spoken 
English, in that it is more subject to fashion, and, it may 
perhaps be admitted, more shaped, in any given age, by a 
deliberate selective and eliminating process. What, then, 
is the relation of this form of Spoken English to the 
language of Literature ? 

Both, as has been said, are sprung originally from the 
same source ; they have developed differently by virtue of 
the different conditions under which they severally exist. 
One great and obvious external difference between Written 
and Spoken English is that, whereas the spelling of the 
former is fixed, and no longer expresses the variations of 
sound which exist in different areas, and arise in different 
ages, the spoken form is for ever undergoing changes in 
pronunciation, with the passage of time and the spread of 
this dialect among all sections of the population. The 
spelling of Literary English, then, no longer expresses, even 
approximately, the facts of actual utterance, as they exist 
in Standard Spoken English, in its different varieties. 

But the differences between Written and Spoken English 
are deeper than those produced merely by a pronunciation 
which has far outstripped its symbolical expression, and 



344 THE STUDY OF PRESENT-DAY ENGLISH 

include also differences of style, of idiom, of choice of 
words, and grammatical forms. 

The language of literature, in all these respects, is always 
slightly more archaic than the uttered speech of the same 
period ; certain words and expressions are avoided in 
writing a serious prose, because they are felt to be too 
familiar — too closely associated with the commonplaces 
and vulgarities of everyday existence ; others, on the 
other hand, find no place in the Spoken language, because 
they seem to savour of pomposity or bookishness. 

But literary style changes from age to age. To a certain 
extent each generation has its own style. Matthew Arnold 
appears to fail in perfect critical insight when he points to 
a noble passage from Dryden's Preface to his translation 
of the JEneid, and remarks that it is ' such a prose as we 
would all gladly use if we only knew how.' This is 
neither adequate as an appreciation of Dryden, nor is it 
strictly true. Only in very special circumstances, and as 
an exercise in imitation, would a writer of the present 
day ' gladly use , the prose of the seventeenth century. 
Herein, indeed, lies the heart of the whole matter. The 
literary language is kept living and flexible only by a close 
relation with the colloquial speech of the age. A purely 
literary tradition, however splendid, will not suffice for the 
style of a later period. A literary tradition alone, deprived 
of the living spirit which informs the great works that 
created the tradition, is a lifeless thing. The breath of 
life comes into literary form from the living spoken lan- 
guage, as it comes into literature itself from touch with life. 
Thus, while great prose owes much to tradition, it owes 
still more to the racy speech of the age in which it is 



THE LIFE-BLOOD OF LITERATURE 345 

produced. The best prose is never entirely remote in 
form from the best corresponding conversational style of 
the period. A robust, intense style glows with emotion, 
and pulsates with passion ; a calm and restrained prose 
must yet be animated with an undercurrent of strenuous 
thought or genuine feeling. If these be lacking, the most 
accomplished reproduction of an old literary model is stiff 
and uninteresting. 

The impression made by fine prose of any age, and not 
infrequently also by verse, of the less artificial and elaborate 
kind, is that the author writes very much as he would speak, 
if he were conveying the same ideas by word of mouth. 
This is felt strongly in reading Chaucer's Canterbury 
Tales, in those passages where the felicitousness and com- 
petence of expression reaches its highest point ; it is felt 
in reading Latimer's Sermons ; in nearly all of Dryden's 
critical prose ; in the Letters of Horace Walpole and of 
Gray ; in Swift, in Goldsmith, and in Sheridan. 

It is this quality of vitality, which springs from a 
mastery of the best spoken form of English of his age, that 
compels our admiration in the prose of Dryden ; but what 
we should ' gladly use ' is not his precise form, which is no 
longer a living vehicle of thought and feeling, but a prose 
which should combine the elements of literary tradition on 
the one hand, with those of contemporary colloquial speech 
on the other, in that just proportion, and with that subtle 
blending, which is the secret of great writers in all ages. 
No writer can express himself adequately in a language 
which is not his own ; the thoughts and emotions of one 
age cannot be conveyed in a style which is outworn ; 
and this has come about when the relation between the 



346 THE STUDY OF PRESENT-DAY ENGLISH 

language of literature and that of everyday life is 
severed. 

It would probably be a fruitful investigation to trace 
the connection between the prose style of the seventeenth 
and eighteenth centuries and that of the closest repro- 
duction of the conversational style of the corresponding 
period which we possess — that is, the language of the 
Comic Drama. 

The Spoken Language. 

One of the most striking features of living, uttered 
speech is its adaptability. Standard English is not fixed 
and rigid in form ; in the same period, and in the mouth 
of the same speaker, it is not invariable under all condi- 
tions, and in every kind of company. The actual sounds 
employed, the speed of utterance, the intonation, the 
sentence structure, the choice of vocabulary, are all 
variable according to the requirements of the moment. 
The speaker adapts his speech, both in public oration, and 
in private conversation, to suit his audience. This modi- 
fication of the language in its different elements may be 
deliberate, but for the most part is unconscious and 
instinctive. 

In public speaking, the manner of the discourse of an 
accomplished and practised orator is determined to a 
great extent by the size of the audience ; but also by the 
speaker's estimate of their mental calibre, no less than by 
his own. Upon this power of ' getting into touch ' with 
his hearers, on the part of the speaker, the success and 
effectiveness of an academic lecture, a political harangue, 
or an after-dinner speech will largely depend. There is 



ADAPTABILITY OF THE SPOKEN LANGUAGE 347 

room for an investigation into the variations of style, 
vocabulary, idiom, and syntax of the same speaker, accord- 
ing to the size, intellectual quality, and general temper of 
his audience. 

Public oratory is that form of the Spoken language 
which comes nearest to the language of literature in 
style. But if this form of uttered language is liable to 
modification in the manner indicated, the private speech 
of ordinary conversation is no less sensitive to the modi- 
fying influences of social atmosphere. There is room for 
a vast amount of variability in the colloquial speech of 
the same individual, according to the company in which 
he is placed. Phraseology, vocabulary, even pronuncia- 
tion, tend, each and all, to adapt themselves to the 
personality and attainments of the person addressed. The 
manner of speech may be perfectly natural, or it may 
become stilted, pompous, flippant, archaic, or slangy, 
accordingly as the real or fancied personality of the hearer 
excites reverence, trepidation, confidence, affection, or con- 
tempt in the mind of the speaker. The disparity which 
provokes such departure from the normal colloquial style, 
may be of the most varied kind : it may consist in differ- 
ence of rank, of official status, age, intellectual or moral 
worth, or in worldly success, all of which affect different 
minds in different ways. 

In some cases convention, as it were, strikes the keynote, 
by prescribing by what title certain personages shall be 
addressed, but the rest is left to the instinct or intuition 
of the speaker. Thus, by a convention which will prob- 
ably never change, the Deity, in both private and public 
devotions, is invariablv addressed in the second person 



348 THE STUDY OF PRESENT-DAY ENGLISH 

singular; and in this solitary case the pronoun of that 
person is preserved, which is otherwise completely obsolete 
in Standard English, except among members of the Society 
of Friends. 

There can be no doubt that the best speaker, whether 
in private or public, is he, the form of whose discourse 
instinctively shapes itself to the requirements of the 
moment, without any apparent effort or deliberation. 

For there is a limit beyond which adaptiveness cannot 
go, without awakening resentment or uneasiness in the 
hearers, or, what is perhaps worse, without imperilling the 
vividness and sense of reality in the expression ; and this 
limit is reached very soon after the modification of form, 
or choice of verbiage becomes self-conscious and deliberate. 
If a speaker reacts too much to his environment — to 
borrow a phrase from the vocabulary of Biology — if he is 
either overawed by a sense of the superiority of those to 
whom he speaks, or too deeply conscious of the reverse 
quality, all naturalness of speech is at an end. For in 
one case a speaker will speak too carefully and pedanti- 
cally : he will mince in his pronunciation, and, worst of all, 
perhaps tend to obsequiousness ; in the other, a sense of 
self-importance may bloat his diction to pomposity, and 
convey the feeling that he is trying hard to be worthy of 
himself. Or, again, by a too familiar and undignified 
discourse, he may make his hearers feel that by an infinite 
condescension he is coming down from an immeasurable 
height to their level, and perhaps sinking below it. In 
both cases the speaker may fall back upon set phrases devoid 
of character. Thus the right and proper adaptation of 
spoken language cannot be carried out on any precon- 



STEREOTYPED VERBIAGE 349 

ceived principle, but must spring from a sympathetic and 
humane insight into the personality of those to whom we 
speak, a nice appreciation of the psychological conditions 
of the moment. If a speaker would sway his audience to 
his own mood, or instil his own opinions into their minds, 
if he would ' carry them with him, 1 as the phrase runs, he 
must first lay his finger upon the pulse of their temper 
and of their prejudices. The speaker himself must barely 
perceive the process of adaptation, the hearers not at all ; 
they are merely conscious that the form in which the ideas 
are clothed is entirely suitable and convincing. 

Lifeless Forms of English. 

A living form of speech is one which expresses real ideas 
and feelings and genuine convictions in a form suited to 
the audience and the occasion, springing from the mind of 
the speaker in the process of his thought, and revealing 
something at least of his personality. In order to arrest 
attention and compel interest, an utterance, whether it 
be a public oration or familiar discourse, must contain 
something more than the obvious truisms of a pro- 
position in Euclid; the style in which the thoughts are 
clothed must be personal to the speaker, and not the mere 
repetition of set phrases. The essentials of living utter- 
ance are, then, reality of conviction, and individuality of 
form and phrase. Both of these qualities are very often 
found to a remarkable degree in quite uncultivated, and 
even in ' illiterate, 1 speakers. From these realities of 
speech life, we now turn aside for a short space, to consider 
a dreary linguistic waste of crystallized phrases, lifeless 
forms devoid of movement or feeling, peopled only with 



350 THE STUDY OF PRESENT-DAY ENGLISH 

the ghosts of ideas, and the spectral shadows of human 
desires. 

There are many types of unreal, lifeless English ; they 
range from the terrible phrases of 6 Commercial English, 1 
such as 'Your esteemed favour of even date to hand, 1 
through those unconvincing fossils of language which 
help to fill space in the daily paper — ' The greatest 
consternation prevailed when the news of the disaster 
reached the city,' or the curious jargon known as ' Com- 
mittee English ' — ' Your committee beg to report that 
while fully recognising the importance of the subject 

of , they consider that, under the circumstances, 

it is undesirable to take any further steps in the matter 
for the present' — up to the language of public legal 
documents and of high officialdom. All these lifeless 
forms of English have at least this in common : they con- 
sist largely of cut-and-dried phrases pieced together. In 
these phrases, whether they be uttered or written, there 
lurks no human emotion, no intensity of thought; they 
reveal nothing of the state of mind of him who uses them ; 
they kindle no hope or enthusiasm in the hearer. The cheap 
verbiage of the penny-a-liner is generally the cloak of his 
incapacity to express anything; the stereotyped phrases 
of the fluent committee debater, or of the official generally, 
are devices for politely shelving inconvenient questions, or 
are intended to guard the speaker from identifying himself, 
or his office, too intimately and irrevocably, with any par- 
ticular line of thought or action. The characteristic effect 
of a diction of set expressions artfully tagged together, 
whether this be the result of incompetence, as in the case 
of a bad writer, or of design, as in that of a wary and 



. VULGARITY OF CONVENTIONAL PHRASES 351 

experienced official, is that it is singularly lacking in interest 
or power of convincing those to whom it is addressed. 
Thus the historian of the Police Court does not quicken 
our pulses by a single beat by his account of ' a young lady 
of prepossessing appearance, fashionably attired," etc. If a 
body of starving men petition Parliament to relieve their 
necessities, it neither appeases their hunger, nor calms 
their anxiety, to be told that their circumstances 'will 
receive the careful consideration of the Government." 

Clothed in the language of conventional set phrase, the 
noblest thoughts and loftiest aspirations are robbed of 
their grandeur and become commonplace ; events of the 
greatest solemnity and moment, or the actions of heroes, 
shrink to the insignificance of a meeting of directors ; 
while what is trite or vulgar, in feeling, or in ideas, simply 
vanishes altogether amid the meaningless verbiage. 

Distressing as the habit is of using a series of stereo- 
typed expressions, even in formal deliverances on public 
bodies, or in the written forms in journalism, it must be 
recognised that it is very much worse to do so in private 
intercourse, either in conversation or in correspondence. 
It is felt that to speak ' Committee English ' in private is 
an offence which can only arise, either, from ill -breeding, 
or from ignorance of the proper forms of polite Spoken 
English. ' Proverbial expressions and trite sayings, - * says 
Lord Chesterfield, ' are the flowers of the rhetoric of a 
vulgar man. 1 Whatever be the cause which induces a 
speaker to mask his real feelings and views in this lifeless 
form of language, the result is fatal to a satisfactory 
understanding. The sense of sincerity, ease, and reality 
vanishes, and an uncomfortable atmosphere of uncertainty 



352 THE STUDY OF PRESENT-DAY ENGLISH 






if not of absolute distrust, is created. There can be no 
doubt that for those who have not habitually heard good, 
racy, expressive Polite English spoken from childhood, this 
is a most necessary side of English study from a purely 
practical point of view. Unfortunately, it is almost uni- 
versally supposed to be enough to acquire a fairly good 
knowledge of the written language, and the differences 
between good Written and good Spoken English are com- 
pletely ignored, not only in primary schools, but also in 
the curriculum for the training of teachers. 

The art of speaking English so as to be ' familiar, but 
by no means vulgar,' is apparently supposed to be the 
common heritage of the primary teacher. This is, how- 
ever, as far as possible from being the case. It is perfectly 
true that the only way of learning to speak any dialect 
readily and fluently, whether it be good English or good 
French, is to hear it and use it so frequently that it 
becomes instinctive. At the same time, much help in the 
direction of observation can be given, and should be given 
systematically. Now, many persons in this country, who 
are otherwise highly educated, fail signally in possessing a 
command of easy, natural, Polite Spoken English. The 
reason for this is that they have not grown up in circles 
where this kind of English is current, neither have they 
had their attention directed to its characteristics. The 
result is they have the choice between the English of 
books or of set phrases on the one hand, or on the other, 
a form more or less ' incorrect ' or ' provincial,' perhaps, 
but nevertheless a living form, which they have been 
carefully taught to avoid. 

The fact is that the native form of Spoken English is 



THE CONCEPTION OF A STANDARD OF SPEECH 353 

eliminated by training, but no colloquial form is put in its 
place. 

The importance of the study of Spoken English has 
been constantly emphasized in the foregoing pages as a 
necessary preparation for the historical study of the 
language, and as a starting-point of phonetic training. 
From this point of view, the student's own natural speech 
forms the proper basis of study, and so long as that 
inquiry is confined to the above-mentioned limits, no 
question of ' Right ' or ' Wrong ' arises — merely that of 
what actually occurs in the speech of a given individual 
or group of individuals. But from the practical, as con- 
trasted with the purely historical and scientific, standpoint, 
the power of v riting and speaking ' correct ' English can- 
not be disregarded in any complete scheme of education, 
and it is now suggested that it is quite as necessary to speak 
well as to write well. In the study of Spoken English, 
from the practical point of view, three main sides of the 
subject must be dealt with : Pronunciation, Vocabulary, 
and the choice of Idiom. 

Standards of Good or Bad Spoken English. 

It has been made abundantly clear in the course of 
the present volume that there is no absolute standard of 
4 correctness , in language beyond that established by the 
habitual usage of a given community. Such a standard, 
as has been said, holds good for that community at a given 
moment. But as speech habit changes, so ideas of what 
is c right ' and 6 wrong ' have also to be readjusted. 
From this point of view, which is the purely scientific 
one, there is no question of degrees of worthiness between 

23 



354 THE STUDY OF PRESENT-DAY ENGLISH 

different dialects ; they are each and all regarded merely 
as varying phases of linguistic development — the facts of 
each and all equally deserve attention. We now pass to 
examine a little more closely a different view of language, 
one which definitely holds that of the numerous forms of 
English, one is pre-eminently Good English, the best and 
most polite among the dialects. 

It has been said in an earlier chapter {cf. pp. 22-25) 
that it is possible to over-estimate the degree of uniformity 
with which Standard English is spoken throughout the 
country, and it should be remembered that a form of 
language which is disseminated over so wide a geo- 
graphical area and among such divers classes must inevit- 
ably undergo a certain degree of differentiation. The 
checks which exist upon the tendency to differentiate 
Standard English, and the forces which make possible so 
large a degree of uniformity as undoubtedly exists, have 
already been discussed {cf. pp. 99-105). It is perhaps not 
strange that the very phrase Standard English should 
arouse antagonism in minds which, possibly through no 
fault of the individual, are prejudiced by being in- 
sufficiently informed. 

It is perhaps said, ' You admit a considerable amount 
of differentiation in your so-called Standard English, 
and yet you adhere to the conception of a Standard. 
How is this logical ?' The reply to this objection is, 
that the distinctions between the different forms of 
Standard English are very slight, almost imperceptible, 
indeed, to any but the most alert and practised observer, 
and that they shrink to a negligible quantity compared 
with the differences between out-and-out ' Vulgarism ' on 



PRONUNCIATION THE TEST OF ' CORRECTNESS ' 355 

the one hand, or provincial — that is, regional — dialects on 
the other. 

In Standard English, as with all other forms of speech, 
a certain degree of divergence is possible, without such 
divergence being felt as constituting a different dialect. 
Of a dozen speakers of Standard English, each may possess 
slight differences of utterance, or phraseology, and yet 
none feel that the speech of any of the others, even where 
it differs from his own, verges towards Vulgarism or 
' Dialect ' in the special sense. 

The most noteworthy criterion of Good English, or 
Standard English, is pronunciation. In this respect there 
are two main points to be observed — the actual sounds 
employed and the proper distribution of those sounds ; that 
is, the use of them in the right words. The fact that a 
certain group of sounds, and those sounds only (subject to 
the slight divergences already mentioned), and, further, a 
certain distribution of those sounds, is accepted in the 
polite usage is the result of convention. The fundamental 
reason of that convention is that certain pronunciations 
are associated by long habit with a cultivated mind, liberal 
education, refined taste, and good breeding generally ; other 
pronunciations are associated with the reverse qualities of 
mind and manners. The former mode of pronunciation is 
held to be an indication of the possession of the politer 
education. If it be asked where this superior form of 
English is heard, it may be answered, that on the whole, it 
is the speech in vogue at the Court, in the Church, at the 
Bar, at the older Universities, and at the great Public 
Schools. The English of the stage is also a form of 
Standard English, but it differs from the English of good 

23—2 



356 THE STUDY OF PRESENT-DAY ENGLISH 

society, partly in being more archaic, partly also in being 
marred by certain artificialities and affectations of pro- 
nunciation. That a standard form of English has been 
in existence, sedulously cultivated, and jealously (if often 
foolishly) treasured, for the last 350 years at least, no 
one who has studied the authorities upon English Pro- 
nunciation, from the middle of the sixteenth century 
downwards, quoted in the preceding chapter, can have any 
doubt whatever. 

At the present time it will not be denied that to inculcate 
the speaking of correct English is the chief solicitude of a 
very large number of persons engaged in Primary and 
Secondary Education in this country. Those whose busi- 
ness it is to teach, who are to become public speakers, or 
who wish to enter upon public life, or affairs of any kind, 
undoubtedly find it convenient to get rid of whatever 
native ' vulgarisms ' or dialectal peculiarities their speech 
contains, and to attempt to approximate their Spoken 
English to that standard form which is no longer confined 
to a single province, or to a particular social class. 

In the face of these facts it cannot be thought presump- 
tuous to insist upon the existence of a recognised standard 
of English speech, to endeavour to arrive at some clear 
ideas as to its characteristics, and to indicate a reasonable 
way of regarding it. 

In such an inquiry the main things to be avoided are, 
on the one hand, tolerating too great slackness and sloven- 
liness, which is the fallacy of those who incline to reject 
the whole conception of a standard of speech, and on the 
other the pedantic insistence upon precious and artificial 
forms of language ; the setting up, in fact, of a false 



THE ELEMENT OF ARTIFICIALITY 357 

standard of perfection, which is the prevailing sin of those 
who are over-anxious to speak ' correctly. , 

It has been said, that owing to social circumstances, a 
certain type of English speech is regarded as an evidence 
of cultivation and refinement, and this in itself would con- 
stitute a strong claim for this form of English to be con- 
sidered as worthy of attention ; but it might further be 
urged that Standard English has an absolute superiority 
over any other dialect in the high degree of acoustic dis- 
tinctness which it possesses, compared with the provincial 
or vulgar forms of English. This quality makes it emi- 
nently suitable for public speaking. 

To what Extent Standard English is Artificial. 

In a perfectly natural, unconventional, and popular form 
of speech, such as we may find in many of the remote 
provincial dialects of this country, the speakers do not 
consider the question of ' correctness , or the reverse. They 
speak the dialect as it was transmitted to them, without 
inquiring whether one of two variants which may exist 
within the dialect, in certain cases, is ' better ' than the 
other. 

In fact, ordinary dialect speakers have no standard of 
speech, or none, at least, determined by any canons of taste, 
or what is called ' good form.'' Such is the position of all 
primitive languages, of all such as are not the vehicles of 
culture, or of such, as by the force of social conditions, 
have become, as it were, backwaters of the great stream of 
national speech. This subordinate position of the pro- 
vincial dialects is the inevitable result of the rise of one 
immensely predominant form of language, as that of the 



358 THE STUDY OF PRESENT DAY ENGLISH 

official classes, and of the most cultivated portion of the 
community. When one dialect obtains the dignity of 
becoming the channel of all that is worthiest in the national 
literature and the national civilization, the other less 
favoured dialects shrink into obscurity and insignificance. 
The latter preserve, however, this advantage, considered as 
types of linguistic development, that the primitive condi- 
tions under which language exists, and changes, are far 
more faithfully represented in them than in the cultivated 
dialect. For it is a characteristic, and necessarily so, of a 
standard dialect, that the question of what is i Right ' or 
' Wrong, ' Correct ' or 4 Incorrect? 6 Good Form ' or ' Bad 
Form? ' Polite ' or ' Vulgar? should be raised. 

From the moment that such conceptions as these are 
introduced, a certain element of artificiality arises in that 
form of language which is affected by them. This element 
of artificiality, however, lies, as a rule, not in the actual 
forms or phrases themselves, nor in the mode of their 
development, but simply in the fact that a more or less 
deliberate choice is exercised by the speakers in eliminating, 
or adopting for use this or that particular pronunciation, 
word, phrase, or construction. It is important to realize 
that the most fastidious speaker does not create new forms 
himself, nor deliberately carry out a sound change. Un- 
less he is deliberately artificial, the individual merely exer- 
cises a power of selection from among speech elements, 
sounds, and the rest, which exist already, and which have 
arisen by a perfectly natural and normal process of de- 
velopment. Thus even in the most highly cultivated form 
of Standard Dialects, whether it be English or any other 
language, speakers cannot consciously alter the course of 



SHIFTING OF THE STANDARD OF ' CORRECTNESS > 359 

the natural trend of development; this goes on unper- 
ceived, here, as in the most barbarous and primitive form 
of speech. But in the Standard Language, at any given 
period, certain modes of speech may be definitely avoided, 
while others are habitually used. 

The standard of what is Polite or the reverse varies 
from age to age, and in former chapters of this book 
examples of this fluctuation have been given. One factor, 
which determines the rejection of what was formerly held 
to be the best usage, is undoubtedly the spread of Standard 
English among various social classes, with the result that 
a particular pronunciation, word or phrase, loses distinc- 
tion, and acquires so common a currency, that with it an 
association of vulgarity or lack of refinement is formed. 
There is in this respect an analogy between fashion in 
speech and other fashions or habits. They may start 
high up in the social scale, and be gradually imitated and 
adopted as signs of superiority by the lower grades of 
society. By the time, however, that the fashion has 
become firmly fixed among such classes as do not usually 
enjoy a reputation for refinement and distinction, it has 
been already discarded by those divisions of society whence 
it originally proceeded. In the curious turns of fashion in 
speech, not only is that given up which an earlier genera- 
tion considered good, but what they held as vulgar is often 
adopted by their successors. 

The differences in pronunciation which exist at a given 
time, between the various sections of English people who 
speak what we may call a variety of Standard English, 
consist for the most part, not of differences in the actual 
sounds used, but in the distribution of the sounds. It is, 



360 THE STUDY OF PRESENT-DAY ENGLISH 

of course, merely a question of degree, but we must admit 
that such a pronunciation as that of the Cockney (raiuwai) 
c railway,' with the triphthong (am), which is absolutely 
unknown in the best Standard English, in any word, 
reveals a wider dialectal difference from the received form 
(reilwei), than that of such a pronunciation as (dams) 
instead of the (in the South) more usual (dans), or (kofT), 
6 coffee,' as compared with (krfi). Again, the Cockney 
sound in the unstressed syllable of i father ' (mid-flat- 
tense, instead of slack), or in that ' boots ' (high-back-out- 
tense-round, instead of the full-back), are sounds which the 
speakers of the best English never by any chance employ 
— which, indeed, they would probably have considerable 
difficulty in reproducing. Such differences as these con- 
stitute, as it appears, not a mere Variety, but a different 
Dialect. On the other hand, such pronunciations as (kaf, 
^lta, hjumaras, pjwa, or pjua, kotasz) as compared with 
(k5f, 5lta, jumaras, pj5, kxtasz) do not constitute more 
than varieties, or alternative pronunciations, both of which 
are, at the present time, perhaps almost equally widespread 
among speakers of good Standard English. The existence 
of such alternatives seems to show a period of transition 
as regards the standard of pronunciation in these particular 
words. Probably fifty years hence fashion will have 
decided definitely in favour of one or other of the above 
types. The present writer inclines to believe that there is 
a slight majority of speakers of Standard English at the 
present time in favour of the latter group of pronuncia- 
tions given above, and that in time those in the former 
group will disappear, as possible standard forms. There 
are cases where the distribution of particular sounds among 



LORD CHESTERFIELD ON CORRECT SPEECH 361 

a given set of words is so definitely fixed by the received 
usage that a deviation from such a system of distribution 
would be quite enough to constitute a wide difference of 
dialect. Thus there is not the faintest doubt that (spun, 
huk, blad, klak, dabi, vivtju, or vAtJu, lXn, r3]>, amarj) are 
the received forms of these words among the best speakers, 
and that such pronunciations as (spun, buk [or bak], blud, 
klAk, dXbi, vatju, Ian, raj>, am^ij) are at the present time 
6 vulgarisms,' or provincial forms. 

Thus the history of a standard form of language com- 
prises these two aspects — natural development or gradual 
shifting of the speech habit, and the fluctuations of fashion 
which determine the particular action of the selective 
process. 

[Note. — Since the above was written, Professor Ripp- 
mann's Sounds of Spoken English (Dent, 1906) has ap- 
peared. Students will find this book useful, and the 
remarks on the distribution of vowel sounds in English are 
particularly interesting.] 

Criteria of 'Good' Pronunciation. 

The most usual way of dealing with this question is to 
lay down certain definite rules as to how English ' ought , 
to be pronounced. This is the worst possible method, 
because it implies the existence of an absolute standard of 
Right and Wrong in language. 

The only test of what the conventional standard of any 
age really is, is simply the custom of good speakers. c A 
man of fashion,' says Lord Chesterfield — and we may give 
the remark a wider application — ' a man of fashion takes 



362 THE STUDY OF PRESENT-DAY ENGLISH 

great care to speak very correctly and grammatically, and 
to pronounce properly — that is, according to the usage of 
the best companies.' That is the right definition of 
speaking ' correctly,"' and it can hardly be improved upon. 
Any system of pronunciation which is not based upon one 
actually in use, is merely theoretical, and therefore worth- 
less. It is impossible to say a priori how a doubtful word 
may or may not be pronounced. All that a teacher of 
pronunciation is justified in saying is, ' This word is pro- 
nounced in such and such a way by good speakers. 1 But if 
he has not heard good speakers pronounce the word ; if he 
himself is not naturally one (that is, from the time he 
learned to speak) ; or if, being a ' good speaker,' he has 
yet no personal experience of how the word in question 
actually is pronounced, then he simply does not know, and 
cannot teach the pronunciation of it. To go beyond such ex- 
perience, and to say that the word i ought ' to be pronounced 
thus or thus, is to court disaster. These theoretical pro- 
nunciations, so far from being ' refined ' or showing culture, 
are merely laughable. For if a speaker has not heard a 
word pronounced, what means can he possibly have for 
knowing what the sound of it i ought ' to be ? There are, 
indeed, two ways by which he might arrive at a conclusion. 
The first, and the worst, and yet that usually employed by 
those who theorize about pronunciation, is the spelling ; 
the other is the early history of the word in question, and 
of other words originally containing the same sound. To 
start with, let us say at once that neither of these tests 
will enable us to determine how the word ' ought ' to have 
developed, since neither the schoolmaster nor the elocu- 
tionist can prescribe the path along which language shall 



EXPERIENCE ALONE TEACHES HOW TO PRONOUNCE 363 

change, any more than they can ' bind the Unicorn, or 
draw out Leviathan with an hook. , Now as to how far 
either of the above methods can help us to arrive at what 
the pronunciation of a word is, which is the true object 
of our inquiry. The most unreliable of all guides to the 
pronunciation of an English word is its spelling, and 
nothing is more ludicrous than a theoretical pronunciation 
based solely upon it. On the other hand, a knowledge of 
the history of English sounds would certainly enable us to 
say, i The pronunciation may be so and so." It could not 
do more than suggest the possibilities; only a knowledge 
of the actual usage of the time could decide between the 
variously differentiated forms which our historical method 
would enable us to infer. For instance, a speaker (let us 
say a German philologist) who had never heard the word 
' good ' pronounced might know that O.E. god is capable 
of producing three types in Modern English (gud, gwd, 
gad), but he could not possibly say which is actually 
in use among ' good speakers ' until he had gained the 
living experience. 

As a matter of fact, any scholar so well versed in the 
history of English as to be able to reconstruct the possible 
forms of a word, would also know that, in Lord Chester- 
field's phrase, only the ' usage of the best companies , 
could decide between them. 

In the case of words which are very rarely used, or which 
are revivals of obsolete forms, the tradition has naturally 
died out ; there is no modern form, and the speaker who 
uses such words has his choice between the historical 
pronunciation (that which the word would probably have 
obtained if it had survived), or of a spelling pronunciation 



364 THE STUDY OF PRESENT-DAY ENGLISH 

pure and simple. A curious example of a word which is 
really obsolete, because the institution which it denotes 
has passed away, is ' chivalry.' This word only survives in 
historical or romantic diction, and the old tradition has 
been lost. It is now very commonly pronounced (Szvairi), 
as if it were a word of recent importation from French, 
whereas it came into English through Norman-French ; 
and there is no doubt that in that tongue, and in 
Middle English, it was pronounced (tjivalri), which would 
become (tjivalri) in Modern English. This pronunciation 
is indicated in Campbell's lines : 

1 Wave, Munich_, all thy banners wave, 
And charge with all thy chivalry/ 

where the alliteration is obviously (tjadz wi<5 5l fiai tSivalri). 

The sport of falconry has practically died out in England, 
and both it, and the bird from which it takes its name, are 
known to most people only from books. The result is that 
the old pronunciation, without the /, has been lost, and the 
present pronunciation is due to the spelling. I have ob- 
served, however, that those few persons who have personal 
knowledge of the bird, and of the sport, invariably pro- 
nounce (fokan, fokanri), or at any rate the oldest genera- 
tion do, instead of the now received (folkan). The general 
question of spelling-pronunciations which have become 
fixed and received will be discussed later on. 

But if such artificial pronunciations are practically 
inevitable in the case of rare and obsolete words, they are 
inadmissible and ridiculous for words which are in common 
use, and which the speakers must have heard hundreds of 
times. 

The chief cause of these absurdities occurring among 



VULGARITY OF SHAM REFINEMENT 365 

educated speakers is a mistaken striving after refinement. 
Public speakers, especially those whose traditions are purely 
academic rather than of a wider social world, are not in- 
frequently guilty of extraordinary lapses from decorum and 
propriety in the matter of pronunciation. 

It may seem incredible that men of learning, who convey 
the general impression that they expect to be taken seriously, 
should corrupt the English tongue to the extent of pro- 
nouncing (poignant, lsemb, litaratjoa, raitias, fohtd, grin wit J, 
saufiln), all of which pronunciations the present writer has 
heard in the course of the last few years, instead of the 
6 proper pronunciation ' — in the sense of Lord Chesterfield 
— (poinant, laem, litaratja, raztjas, fjrid, grimdz, saftan). 
The speakers who perpetrated these forms pour rire must 
have known quite well what the ordinary pronunciation 
was; they must have been aware that their forms were 
deliberately falsified on the spur of the moment, from some 
vague idea of importing greater dignity (as they supposed) 
to their discourse. In these cases the speakers must 
have been anxious to deserve the praise, often ignorantly 
bestowed by the injudicious, that they ' pronounced every 
letter distinctly/ On the same principle, apparently, an 
eminent actor delights provincial audiences with the fervid 
expression of his (lov) 4 love.' 

If we consider that we write many ' letters ' in English 
spelling which represent no sound that has been heard in 
English speech for 500 years, or sometimes longer, it is 
easy to see that the practice, if consistently carried out, 
would result in an altogether unintelligible jargon, one 
which would, in most cases, resemble nothing that had ever 
existed in English, during the whole course of its history. 



306 THE STUDY OF PRESENT-DAY ENGLISH 

It is a great fallacy to imagine that ' Good English ' is to 
be obtained by distorting natural and usual pronunciation 
to suit some arbitrary standard of ' refinement ' set up by 
an individual. Besides the monstrosities cited above, this 
effort at 'refinement' not infrequently leads to the pro- 
duction of strange and, in their context, quite un-English 
sounds, such as (ei, e) instead of (ai) in ' light, 1 ' rhyme, 
' prime, 1 ' desire, 1 and so on, which has not even the 
specious justification of ' giving every letter its full 
sound. 1 

The first pitfall to avoid, then, is a bogus ' refinement'' 
of utterance. 

The next error, closely allied to it, but often springing 
from a different motive, is over -carefulness. It may be 
laid down as a general principle that just as 'refined 1 
speech such as we have been considering is always absurd, 
so 'careful 1 speech is always vulgar. The best English 
never conveys the impression of carefully- studied utterance 
on the part of the speaker ; there is never any suspicion of 
mincing, as if to avoid some irretrievable vulgarism. This 
kind of pedantic and unreal pronunciation has nothing to 
be said in its favour. It may proceed from any one of the 
following causes : (1) Ignorance of the habitual pronuncia- 
tion of good speakers. (2) A foolish desire to improve 
upon the received pronunciation, either by giving greater 
fulness, or, perhaps, even by introducing some sound which 
has either long disappeared, or has never existed at all ; 
this motive is that wish for ' refinement ' or ' correctness , 
already discussed. (3) In addressing a large audience 
public speakers feel a need for great precision, distinctness, 
and volume. To attain these ends they are sometimes 



THE 'LETTER' WHICH KILLETH 367 

unfortunately led into an exaggerated modification of their 
pronunciation, beyond the limits of the natural. We 
have already noted that there is a necessary and legitimate 
adaptation of speech under these circumstances, but a good 
speaker does not deviate so far from his natural modes of 
utterance as to produce something strange and manifestly 
artificial. It is surely absurd to maintain that the English 
of the present day is unfitted, in its natural form, for 
public oratory, and that it needs to be distorted for this 
purpose into something altogether different. (4) Many 
speakers have a curious sentimentality with regard to 
English. They are so solicitous of its purity and integrity, 
that practically no existing form of natural Spoken English 
comes up to their ideal of what the language ought to be. 
The ideal of this school is based entirely upon the present- 
day spelling. They may be quite ignorant of how that 
spelling came about, they may know nothing of the history 
of English pronunciation, but they show a remarkable 
tenderness for the letters, which they have come to think 
really are the word. This point of view is respon- 
sible for more eccentricities and affectations in pronuncia- 
tion than any of the others, excepting, perhaps, that 
which aims at a personal distinction of utterance, as a 
kind of protest against the prevailing vulgarity. Both 
the speaker who wishes to speak better than anyone else, 
and the sentimentalist who lovingly clings to the ' letters,' 
are open to the grave reproach that they generally carry 
their vagaries into the colloquial speech of everyday life ; 
and that while they are often fully conversant with polite 
usage, they yet deliberately set it at nought. 

Assuming that a speaker had a thorough knowledge of 



368 THE STUDY OF PRESENT-DAY ENGLISH 

the history of English pronunciation, it would, of course, 
be possible for him to select for his own usage the sound 
system in vogue in any century that he preferred. In this 
case he would at least be employing forms that had once 
had a real existence. Probably few would commend such 
a practice in speech, any more than they would welcome 
the return on the part of isolated individuals to the wigs of 
Charles the Second's day, or the ruffs of the age of the first 
James. But the sentimental speaker of English is not as 
a rule familiar with any earlier phase of his language, but 
simply concocts a fancy dialect on the most unreliable of 
all bases — that of spelling, a guide which, as we have seen, 
is certain to lead the theorist into endless error. 

The only safe course as regards pronunciation is frankly 
to recognise the fact that language changes, that standards 
of excellence shift, that the individual cannot delay the 
process, and that he is consulted as to which direction 
development will take. 

The only good reason for deviating from the received 
standard of English speech is ignorance of it. The best 
substitute for such a form of English is a genuine pro- 
vincial dialect, or an honest ' vulgarism.' For lack of 
knowledge may be informed, and, if necessary, a new 
dialect can be acquired. 

The Teaching of Polite Pronunciation. 

If it is desired to instruct those who do not possess it, 
in polite English pronunciation, there are three Perfect 
Points which demand attention, if success is to be attained. 
They are : The attitude of the teacher towards the actual 



TEACHING A NEW PRONUNCIATION 369 

dialect of the pupil ; the setting up of true standards of 
speech ; the method of imparting the new pronunciation. 
It is not too harsh a criticism on most of those who under- 
take this task, whether it be in schools, in training colleges, 
or among private pupils, in this country, to say that in the 
great majority of cases, the three points just mentioned do 
not meet with satisfactory or adequate treatment at their 
hands. 

The instruction is given either by a regular elocutionist, 
or by any ordinary master or mistress, just as occasion 
serves. In the former case, the instruction, so far as it 
goes, is more or less systematic ; in the latter it is purely 
haphazard, and takes the form of the occasional correction 
of isolated ' mistakes ' as they occur in reading. The pro- 
fessed teacher of elocution, it is true, is primarily con- 
cerned with showing how poetry or prose should be read, 
in such a way as to ' interpret the author's meaning ' ; 
incidentally he also ' corrects ' pronunciation. We may 
take the three points in order, and endeavour to state 
fairly the necessary shortcomings both of professional 
elocutionist and ordinary master or mistress. 

The Attitude of the Teacher towards the Dialect of the 
Pupil, 

The possession of a certain dialect as a native form of 
speech implies, as we know, the possession of a certain 
speech basis. The nature of this determines the natural 
tendencies and habits of pronunciation. If it is proposed 
to acquire a new and different pronunciation, a new 
speech basis must first be gradually formed. The first step 
in this process is for the speaker to know thoroughly, and 

24 



370 THE STUDY OF PRESENT-DAY ENGLISH 

understand, the facts of his own speech habits. Thence he 
can proceed to learn different habits. 

Now, what is the practice of the inexperienced and un- 
trained teacher of pronunciation ? He brushes aside, as 
of no interest, no value, and as having no justification, the 
speech habits of a lifetime ; he throws contempt or ridicule 
upon the pupil's accent. His one idea is to ignore and 
forget the natural pronunciation of those whose speech he 
is to ' improve.' He asserts that it is ' wrong,' but he 
gives no reason for the statement ; he abuses and dis- 
parages that which the pupil has learnt, from his mother, 
perhaps, and which he has heard and used himself so long 
as he can remember. He is quite ignorant of the ways of 
that ever-varying mystery, human speech ; yet he takes 
upon himself to abuse and condemn a form of it which 
may have had a historical existence and development as 
4 regular ' as Standard English itself, and which is, perhaps, 
a far purer dialect. He could not inform his class why his 
own speech ought to serve as a model, nor why it differs 
from theirs, nor, indeed, with any degree of accuracy, how 
it differs from theirs ; yet he presumes to reiterate his own 
pronunciation of this or that word, and to assert that it 
is ' Right.' During the whole course of his instruction 
he never explains the meaning of the terms - Right ' and 
' Wrong,' which he uses so often, beyond, perhaps, conveying 
the idea that the i wrong ' pronunciations of the students are 
bad attempts on their part to pronounce as he does himself. 

Now, as most people with self-respect are keenly sensitive 
on the question of their language, such a method as that 
described (as it is believed without exaggeration), merely 
wounds without enlightening. 



GOOD COLLOQUIAL ENGLISH THE BEST MODEL 371 

The Standards which are Set Up. 

It is almost inevitable that a professional elocutionist, 
from his training, should seek his models of pronunciation 
and delivery, not in the best colloquial forms of English, 
but in the artificial declamatory utterance usual on the 
stage, or in high-flown public oratory. The standards, 
therefore, which he submits for the imitation of his pupils, 
and which he himself strives to illustrate in private con- 
verse, no less than in public recitation, are generally apt 
to be artificial to the last degree. There is a danger that, 
considered as types of public speaking, these standards 
will be archaic and pedantic ; while as forms of colloquial 
speech they will be as far removed from the familiar pro- 
nunciation of good society as any dialect or out-and-out 
vulgarism could be. In this form of English we generally 
find all the distressing symptoms discussed above — over- 
carefulness, bogus refinement, impossible pronunciations, 
based, not on the fact of what is, but on a theory of what 
4 ought ' to be. Undesirable as this kind of pronunciation 
is, even in public speaking, it is intolerable in private 
conversation ; and he who practises it can hardly hope to 
escape the reproach of being a coxcomb and a pedant ; he 
will certainly not pass for a well-spoken, well-bred person. 
We may grant that a competent teacher of elocution as 
such, even one who teaches on the above lines, has the 
power of imparting an intelligible and an expressive, if, 
perhaps, rather too ' theatrical ' a delivery ; but we can 
but feel that his method, even if considered as a training 
in public speaking only, is an inversion of the natural 
process. Before a man can speak well in public, he must 

24—2 



372 THE STUDY OF PRESENT-DAY ENGLISH 

first learn to speak well in private. The latter mode of 
speech must, above all things, be natural, and must not be 
based primarily upon models derived from public oratory, 
neither in pronunciation, nor in choice of diction. Good 
colloquial English, in a word, is not a modification of the 
English of the platform. On the other hand, it might 
with greater propriety be held that the best public speak- 
ing is a modified and adapted form of the best colloquial 
speech — of that which follows 'the usage of the best 
companies. 1 The teacher of elocution, by training and 
tradition, belongs to that sentimental order of persons, 
already referred to, who are jealous guardians of what they 
conceive to be the purity of English pronunciation, and 
strenuous opponents of new-fangled looseness and easy 
carelessness in utterance. He bewails the corrupt state 
into which the English language has fallen ; he regards 
every pronunciation which differs from his own highly- 
wrought system as wrong and vulgar. So far from 
attempting to follow the best usage of his age in pro- 
nunciation, he denounces all natural pronunciation as 
slovenly, and wishes rather to lead contemporary speech 
into other paths, and to insist upon a pronunciation partly 
of his own making, partly delivered to him by tradition 
from those who taught him his craft. It will, perhaps, be 
apparent, from what has been already said concerning 
artificial pronunciations, that those who attempt to pre- 
serve an old pronunciation, rather than adopt that in 
common use, are in reality, too often the worst innovators, 
since they ' restore,'' from insufficient knowledge, a pro- 
nunciation which has never existed, and which is entirely 
new. It is difficult to understand why it should be held 



NEW TENDENCIES IN THE RISING GENERATION 373 

that a new and natural development in language is a 
matter for regret. Modern English has slowly reached its 
present form by slow development, and has passed through 
numerous phases on its way thither from parent Aryan. 
By a series of minute but unceasing changes which have 
gone on during a period which a moderate estimate counts 
at 10,000 years, that far-off mother - tongue has passed 
here into Greek, there into Russian, there again into 
English, and into innumerable other forms of speech. 
Change may be slower in Modern English to-day than it 
was thousands of years ago in Central Europe, but none 
the less is the drama of transformation being enacted here 
as there. If it were not so, if it had not always been so, 
there could be no comparative philology, no possibility of 
6 wrong ' speech, or ' faulty ' delivery, and, consequently, 
no Art of Elocution ; for Aryan speech would be un- 
differentiated, all individuals would speak alike — ' all the 
earth would be of one speech and one language." 

Whether this would have been an advantage or not we 
need not consider, for the fact is that language is always 
changing, and always will change. This being the case, 
the only reasonable attitude is that which observes and 
notes the changes as they occur, and accepts them with a 
good grace. Those who teach a younger generation must 
be prepared to find tendencies in the speech of their pupils 
which are absent from, or less fully developed in, their own. 
Careful observation over a wide field is necessary to enable 
us to distinguish these new tendencies, which are natural, 
and which are foreshadowings of future development, from 
other deviations from what we take to be Standard English, 
which are dialectal or personal peculiarities. 



374 THE STUDY OF PRESENT-DAY ENGLISH 

Methods of Teaching a New Pronunciation. 

We have already insisted so frequently, in the earlier 
chapters of this book, upon the importance of phonetics 
in the practical and historical study of language that it is 
unnecessary to return at any length to the question. It is 
enough to say that to learn a new pronunciation of the 
native language involves the same kind of difficulties as to 
learn any other new pronunciation. In approaching this 
practical side of linguistic study, mere imitation is in- 
adequate and unsatisfactory, and systematic phonetic 
method is necessary. Since the proper pronunciation of a 
language includes two problems, the mastery of the right 
sounds, and the use of them in the right words, it will be 
found desirable, not only to make a phonetic analysis of 
the sounds of Standard English, which should be compared 
with that first made of the learner's own sounds, but also 
to use texts in phonetic transcription which show the 
distribution of the sounds. The use of a simple phonetic 
alphabet should be practised, and the student should make 
transcripts of prose and verse in his own native pronuncia- 
tion, and also take down his teacher's pronunciation from 
dictation. It is, perhaps, necessary to warn those who 
have not experience in this kind of work that the 
passages must be written down according to the natural 
pronunciation of the words in breath-groups, and not as 
consisting of isolated words. Thus, if Shenstone's lines 
were dictated — 

' So sweetly she bade me adieu, 
I thought that she bade me return,' 



THE VARIOUS ELEMENTS OF POLITE UTTERANCE 375 
they should be read and taken down thus : 



and not 



(' Sou switK fi baed mi sdju, 
ai \>ot ftat fi bsed mi vitKii), 

(' Sou swltk' /I bsed mi adju, 
ai ]?ot "Sset /i bsed mi ntXn). 



In this way the student learns, not only a natural instead 
of a pedantic and forced pronunciation of the sentence, 
but he also realizes how the sounds of words vary according 
to the degree of stress and the character of neighbouring 
sounds in any given context. 

It should be remembered that very important elements 
in Polite English are proper stress, intonation, rate of 
utterance, and the accomplished use of the voice. Mr. 
Sweet in his New English Grammar has shown what vital 
elements stress and intonation are in English syntax. 
What is known as ' over- emphasis ' is a vulgarism which 
must at all costs be eliminated. It consists in placing 
certain parts of the sentence in too strong a relief, by a 
disproportionate contrast between strong and weak stress, 
and also in allowing strong stress to recur too frequently 
in the breath-group. The result is a noisy clatter which 
suggests a series of jerks, instead of a quiet, even flow of 
speech, with occasional salient syllables strongly stressed, 
as good sense, good syntax, and good taste demand. 

Intonation is the most difficult element in pronunciation 
to describe or to acquire. Vulgar speakers often affect the 
frequent use of compound tones to express persuasiveness, 
self-confidence, or good-natured cunning and sagacity. 
Good speakers avoid this means for the expression of 
these emotions, or use it very sparingly. The exaggerated 



376 THE STUDY OF PRESENT-DAY ENGLISH 

use of the compound tones suggests impertinent familiarity. 
The Scotch peculiarity of finishing a sentence with a 
rising tone suggests querulousness, or cavilling, to English 
ears. One of the most characteristic features in a dialect 
is the precise degree of rise or fall, which it would demand 
to express with exactness a musical notation. Foreigners 
often produce a very curious effect by raising or lowering 
the pitch too much or too little as the case may be. 

As regards the management of the speaking voice, 
nothing can make a poor voice into a good one ; but an 
element in the best manner of speech is undoubtedly good 
resonance. In men a full chest note is usual among the 
best speakers, and a throttled, choky, wheezy utterance is 
not impressive. It is not given to everyone to possess a 
fine voice, but training and practice can give control and 
resonance even to a voice which is naturally weak and 
thin. Among certain classes of academic speakers a pecu- 
liar shrill, squeaky falsetto is in vogue, which we must 
pity as a misfortune in those who are naturally so afflicted, 
but which some will consider an absurd affectation in those 
who adopt it, being able to speak otherwise. This is prob- 
ably another instance of that sham refinement too often 
deliberately acquired by the misguided. Among women 
shrill falsetto is rarely heard, except from those who have 
no pretentions to culture or manners. It is strange that 
some men, who represent the most fastidious and precious 
class in the world, should apparently have come to regard 
a squeaky voice as the sign of an enlightened mind and an 
exquisite taste. This manner of speech conveys the im- 
pression of querulous and impotent weakness, a quality in 
itself devoid of dignity and charm. 



INNOVATIONS IN PRONUNCIATION DUE TO SPELLING 377 

The Influence of Spelling on English Pronunciation. 

The number of words in English, of which the ' spelling 
pronunciation ' has become current, in place of the tra- 
ditional sound, is relatively small. An imposing list of 
these is given by Professor Koeppel, in his interesting 
little book, Spelling Pronunciatioiis : Bemer'kimgen iiber 
den Einfluss des Schriftbildes auf den Laid im Englischen ; 
Strassburg, 1901. (Quellemmd Forschungen, Bd. Ixxxix.) 
The principles which underlie this curious phenomenon 
are, in most cases, either the loss of the tradition of pro- 
nunciation of an obsolete word, which has been revived 
from literary sources as a semi-colloquial word ; or, in the 
case of common, genuine colloquial words, the victory of a 
pedantic effort at refinement and correctness. In the case 
of proper names, the cause is often sheer ignorance of the 
traditional pronunciation, on the part of those who are 
strangers to a person or a place. With the arrival of the 
Railway in remote districts, porters, from London perhaps, 
din into the ears of travellers the name of the station, 
which they know chiefly from printed sources. The rising 
generation of natives very soon adopt the new pronuncia- 
tion., and the mere tourist does so the more readily that 
he himself has no knowledge of the local, and therefore 
true, pronunciation. A few examples must suffice, as 
Professor Koeppel has dealt so copiously with the subject. 
The name of St. Alphege is a good example of a literary 
revival, which, however, is not treated in his book. This 
saint's day, as is recorded in the Prayer- Book Calendar, is 
April 19. A certain number of churches in England are 
dedicated to him, and he is (I believe) universally known 



378 THE STUDY OF PRESENT-DAY ENGLISH 

at the present day as (sant selftdz). The O.E. form of 
the name is JElfheah, which in Mod. English could only 
normally become either (tlvi) or (selvi). The present 
actual pronunciation is apparently from a M.E. spelling 
Alphe^e (alfsjt), which later on, when the memory of the 
stout old Archbishop had faded from men's minds, and his 
name from their lips was spelt Alphegge or Alphege, and 
pronounced (alfedz). 

The pronunciation of ' forward ' as (fowad) instead of 
the normal (forad) can only be the result of the same 
tendency which still makes some people say (fohad) instead 
of (forid) or (fbred). But while the latter is still the sign 
either of a prig, or of one who is unacquainted with the 
speech of ' the best companies," the former is the accepted 
and ' correct ' form, except in the Navy, (fared) survives, 
of course, in provincial dialects, and in very colloquial 
speech among all classes. 

The Fifeshire place-name Kikonquahar, which the 
present writer has heard old Fife people call (KEnjahar), is 
now apparently always called (Kilk^nkar). The present 
writer can also remember the old-fashioned pronunciation 
of the Sussex villages Ardingly and Helingly as (adinl&i), or 
among the lower orders themselves (aerdzrjl^i), and (hiKrjlm). 
These have now given place to (ddii\li) and (hilirjli). 
Sussex people still talk of (widest, mzdast) for Wadhurst, 
Midhurst, and this is the pronunciation of the local 
gentry ; but (wjdhXst, mzdhXst) are fast coming in 
through porters and trippers. 

(samnscsta), Cirencester, is more common now than 
either (sisita) or (sisista) even, or perhaps especially, among 
those who know the place quite well. 



THE CORRUPTION OF PROPER NAMES 379 

The village in which these words are written is locally 
known as (5lskat) or (aelskat) ; but the inhabitant of this 
village, when he takes his ticket at Oxford Station, less 
than twenty miles away, is usually corrected by the 
booking-clerk, who insists on (aelvtsk^t). 

Lord Derby's Lancashire seat Knowsley is almost uni- 
versally called (nowzli), yet this pronunciation cannot 
conceivably have developed from M.E. Xnouesli, or 
Knou(l)zvesli, O.E. Kenulfes leak. The true descendant 
of the old forms is heard in the now 'vulgar' (n^wzli), 
which, I am told, still persists among the aged in the 
district. 

In fact, English Place-names are now so generally 
corrupted in their pronunciation through the influence 
of spelling, that in many cases it is impossible to under- 
stand the connection between the old forms and the 
current pronunciation. It becomes, therefore, of the 
utmost importance to ascertain the true pronunciation 
among old people in the district itself, and to pay but 
small attention, until this is done, either to the spelling, or 
to the conventional pronunciation, if we wish to trace the 
history of the name. In the case of other English words, 
whose modern forms do not square with the older forms, 
as regards normal sound change, the possibility of a 
corrupt modern pronunciation, based upon the spelling, 
must be borne in mind. We should rather assume this, 
than an ' exception ' to the known tendencies of change in 
the language. 

We occasionally hear peculiarly flagrant breaches of 
polite usage, such as (iz not it) for (iznt it) or (gem not ai), 
for the now rather old-fashioned, but still commendable, 



380 THE STUDY OF PRESENT-DAY ENGLISH 

(sint ai) or the more usual and familiar (ant ai), or, in 
Ireland (aemnt ai). These forms, which can only be 
based upon an uneasy and nervous stumbling after ' cor- 
rectness/ are perfectly indefensible, for no one ever uttered 
them naturally and spontaneously. They are struck out 
by the individual, in a painful gasp of false refinement. 
There is little chance of such abortive creations getting 
a secure foothold in traditional English, unless linguistic 
education becomes altogether divorced from life, and until 
the native language is taught as though it were a dead 
language, with which the schoolmaster had but an imper- 
fect acquaintance. 

This imperfect treatment of a great subject must now 
draw to a close. The mere thought of human speech, 
passed on from lip to lip through unnumbered ages, 
changing along a definite path among each race as it 
flashes through them, unconsciously shaped to the needs 
of every mind, which it mirrors, and yet, in spite of all, 
preserving an identity which the ear of science can recog- 
nise, is one which must kindle a strange sense of wonder 
and reverence. The most commonplace form of language 
which we can think of has an ancestry more ancient than 
any custom or myth which survives. The humblest form 
of English, whether spoken in a remote Devonshire 
hamlet or in a Northern pit village, is an echo of a tongue 
that once sounded in far -distant countries, among alien 
and savage men, and in ages possibly, when the present 
configuration of the globe was not yet determined. 

Language, so familiar, and yet so mysterious, lies all 
about us. The human mind and the human vocal organs, 



CONCLUSION 381 

the one more complex, the others defter, than in the remote 

past, but still essentially the same now as then, are an 

ever-present field for the observation of the student. The 

root of all science may lie in an awakened and alert 

curiosity concerning the obvious and the commonplace. 

This little book could find no more fitting conclusion 

than the words of iElfric, in the Preface of his Lives of 

the Saints : 

1 Ne secge we nan J?ing niwes on }?issere gesetnysse, 
forf>an }>e hit stod gefyrn awriten 
. , . ]?eah be J?a lsewedan men btet nyston.' 

' We say nothing new in this work, for it all stood written long ago, 
albeit laymen did not know it.' 



SUBJECT INDEX 



Ablaut, nature of, 163 ; in Aryan, 182 ; name due to 
Grimm, 183 ; accent and, 184, 185 ; grades, 185, 
186, 187 ; quantitative, 184 ; qualitative, 184, 188 ; 
diphthongal combinations in, 189 ; examples of. 190- 
194. 

Accent, Aryan, 184 ; Parent Germanic, 199. 

Alphabet, International, 50. 

Analogy, 'exceptions' due to, 115, 213; process of, 129; 
memory and, 129 ; ' false," 132 ; mistakes due to, 
132, 133 ; results in new formations, 134, 135 ; pre- 
vention of differentiation by, 136 ; normal sound 
change and, 137 ; continual process of, 138-140. 

Anglo-French, 288, 289. 

Anglo-Frisian Unity, views of Siebs and Bremer, 195 ; 
Morsbach and Wyld, 196. 

Archaisms, revival of, 127. 

Arnold, Matthew, appreciation of Dryden, 344. 

Aryan, Mother- tongue, 8, 9, 170, 171 ; reconstructed 
forms, value of, 144 ; relative homogeneity of, 103 ; 
wealthy vowel system of, 161 ; divisions of, 169, 
373; race, 172, 173; its cradle, 171, 172; rela- 
tive primitiveness of chief divisions, 173, 174 ; mutual 
relations of these, 175-181 ; consonants, 181 ; vowels, 
182 ; ablaut, 182-194 ; accent, 184 ; Modern English 
and, 373. 

Association groups, 130-131 ; levelling of exceptions due 
to, 133 ; isolation from, 135, 136. 

Avesta, the, dialect of, 169. 

Barbour's ' Bruce,' rhymes in, 262. 

382 



SUBJECT INDEX 383 

Bjbrkman, remarks on Scandinavian loan-words in O.E., 
249 ; on close resemblance between English and 
Norse, 282. 

Bopp, Franz, 8 ; views on sound change, 82. 

Brugmann asserts inadmissibility of 'exceptions,'' 114; 
principles of method used in reconstruction, stated 
by, 163; works of, 166; views of Aryan affinities, 
179, 180 ; on reduced vowels, 186, 187 ; principles of 
philological method formulated by, 215. 

Bulbring on pronunciation of O.E. c^, 225. 

Caxton, Literary English and, 294 ; London dialect and, 
295, 296, 297. 

Chaucer, persistence of Norman-French accent in, 123 ; 
Literary dialect and, 251 ; rhymes of, 259 ; O.E. ce, 
ceg in, 265 ; French influence on language of, 289 ; 
London dialect and, 296, 297 ; Canterbury Tales, 
expression in, 345. 

Chesterfield, Lord, his definition of correct speech, 361, 
362 ; condemns trite phrases, 351. 

Cognates, examples of, 142; tests of identity of origin, 
142. 

Comparison, reconstruction based on, 142, 150 ; words 
suitable for, 143; conditions necessary for, 142; 
limitations within one language, 145, 147 ; im- 
portance of early forms for, 145, 146, 147 ; light 
thrown by widening range of, 147-149, 155-163 ; 
limitations, within one speech-family of, 151-155. 

Consonants, classification of, 32-35 ; natural series of, 35, 
36 ; long and double, 48. 

Conversation, Language of, independent life of, 340, 341 ; 
adaptation to environment, 347, 348 ; limits of adap- 
tation, 348, 349. 

' Correctness ' in language, standard of, 353 ; fluctuation 
of standard of, 359 ; Lord Chesterfield's definition of, 
361, 362. 

Corruptions, 12 ; common use of the term, 19. 

Darmsteter, views on sound change, 84. 

' Dialect ' and ' language ' compared, 91. 

Dialects, mixture of, 22 ; tests of relative superiority of, 



384 SUBJECT INDEX 

22, 23 ; importance of study of, 25, 26, 205 ; rise of, 
95, 96 ; class, 99 ; artificial, literary, 212 ; decay of 
English, 104 ; scientific view of equality among, 353, 
354 ; absence of standard in, 357 ; subordinate posi- 
tion of, 357, 358 ; linguistic development in, 358 ; 
standard, artificiality in, 358, 359. 

Dryden, French influence in, 289 ; appreciation by Matthew 
Arnold, 344 ; prose of, 344, 345. 

Ellis interprets authorities on pronunciation, 67, 68, 301, 
309. 

English, development of vocabulary of, 209 ; modified in- 
flexional system of, 208 ; Norman words in, 124 ; 
Scandinavian words in, 124 ; Indian words in, 124 ; 
lifeless forms of, 349-353. 

English, Correct, practical advantages of its study and use, 
352, 353. 

English dialects, decay of, 104. 

English, Good, reality of existence of, 342. 

English, History of, what it involves, 205 ; methods of 
study, 205, 206. 

English, Literary, 'sounds' of, inaccurate use of term, 341, 
342 ; sources of, 251, 342, 343 ; rise of, 294-297 ; 
Chaucer and, 251 ; Wycliff and, 251 ; Gower and, 
251 ; Caxton and, 294 ; Standard English and, 251, 
295, 340-346. 

English, Middle, apparently exceptional spellings in, 210, 
211 ; relation to Modern English, 250 ; authorities 
on, 252, 253 ; chronological divisions, 253 ; dialects, 
253, 254; texts, 254, 255; orthography, 255-259; 
pronunciation, how established, 259, 260 ; sound 
changes in, 260-265 ; treatment of O.E. diphthongs, 
265, 266 ; rise of new diphthongs in, 266, 267 ; 
vowel -lengthening, 268, 269 ; vowel-shortening, 270- 
273 ; doublets in, 273 ; treatment of O.E. conso- 
nants, 273-280 ; O.E. c, and eg, difficulties concerning, 
in, 275-277 ; summary of dialectal differences in, 280 ; 
French element in, 287-289; inflexions, 289-293; 
Scandinavian element, 281-284 ; tests of Scandinavian 
origin, 285-287. 



SUBJECT INDEX 385 

English, Modern, development of M.E. vowels in, 309-330 
d 9 statements of authorities concerning, 309-316 
a, summary of development of, 316, 317 ; e, 317, 318 
e ' tense; 319, 320 ; % oi, 321-323 ; e ' slack, 1 320, 321 
o c tense, 1 323-327 ; o tense, Scotch pronunciation of. 
324 ; 6' slack, 1 development of, 324, 325 ; o, 325 
u, 325-327 ; it in Scotch dialects, 328 ; u, 328 ; y 
329, 330 ; treatment of M.E. diphthongs, 330-336 
ai, ei, development of, 330-332 ; an, 333-336 ; ou, 
336 ; consonants, development of, in, 336-338 ; slow 
development of, 373 : Aryan and, 373. 

English, Old, problems presented by MSS., 210; sig- 
nificance of ' exceptional , spellings, 210; stages of 
development, 216; dialects, 216-217; sources of 
knowledge of, 217 ; texts, 217-220 ; monographs on, 
220-222 ; pronunciation, 222, 223 ; values of vowel 
symbols, 223-224 ; pronunciation of consonants, 
224-225 ; symbols, 224, 225 ; c, g, g, eg in, 225 ; 
authorities on pronunciation of, 225-226 ; books for 
beginners on, 226 ; W. Germanic vowel changes affect- 
ing, 227-231 ; an, on in, 229 ; Fracture or ' Brechung; 
229-231 ; nasals, loss of, 232, 233 ; i-mutation, 233, 
234 ; lengthening of vowels, 235 ; dialectal diver- 
gences, 235-238 ; Celtic loan-words, 238-239 ; Latin 
loan-words, 239-248 ; Scandinavian loan-words, 248- 
249 ; native words adapted to Christian uses, 247, 
248. 

English Place-Names, 378, 379. 

English, Polite, 342 ; rate of utterance in, 375. 

English, Spoken, historical study and, 205, 339 ; first steps 
in study of, 339, 340 ; source of, 341 ; use of term, 
341 ; importance of study of, 206, 353 ; standards of 
Good or Bad, 353-357. 

English of the Stage, 355, 356. 

English, Standard, existence of, 23 ; historical position of, 
24 ; varying standard of, 24, 25, 318, 359 ; uni- 
formity in, 22-25, 101, 102, 354; spread of, 104, 
105 ; source of, 251, 295, 342, 343 ; provincial speech 
and, 297, 298 ; changes in, 299 ; Literary English 

25 



386 SUBJECT INDEX 

and, 251, 295, 340-346; existence and growth of, 
342, 356 ; nature of, 342 ; artificiality of, 343, 357- 
364; adaptability of, 346-349 ; checks upon differen- 
tiation in, 354 ; pronunciation, chief criterion of, 355 ; 
where heard, 355 ; possible divergences in, 355, 359, 
360 ; importance of, for teacher, etc., 356 ; ' abso- 
lute ' superiority of, 24, 357 ; influence of fashion on 
327, 359. 

Environment, Influence of, 63 ; normally unperceived, 63 ; 
gradually lessens, 64. 

Esperanto, 105 ; its probable future, 105-109. 

Exceptions, explanations of apparent, 114-115, 212-214, 
379. 

Foreign words, translations of, 122 ; conditions for incor- 
poration of, 122, 123. 

Germanic, 8, 168, 196 ; divisions of, 195 ; authorities, 196 
sources of knowledge of, 197 ; characteristics of, 197 
consonant shifting, 198-201 ; ' free ' accent, 199 
treatment of Aryan vowels, 202-203 ; West, charac- 
teristics, 203. 

Glides, 44 ; p, t, Jc, in English and French, 44. 

Gower, and the literary dialect, 251 ; distinguishes be- 
tween tense and slack e, 257. 

Grammar, comparative and historical, 9. 

Grassmann's Law, 174. 

Greek, faithfully preserves primitive vowel system, 160, 
174 ; Grassmann's Law, 174. 

Grimm's Law, 197, 198. 

Hirt, views on sound change, 85, 87, 179 ; on reduced 
vowels, 186, 187, 191. 

Historical linguistic study, 1-3 ; aim, 6; methods of, 4-10, 
211-215 ; necessary equipment for, 10-11 ; proper 
basis of, 61, 206, 339. 

Imitation, limitations of, 56 9 374 ; dangers of faulty, 58, 
59 ; native tongue learnt by, 54 ; sound change and 
faulty theories concerning, 84 ; changes due to faulty, 
125. 
mutation, 10, 150, 233, 234. 
ntonation, 47 ; in Polite English, 375, 376. 



SUBJECT INDEX 387 

-jan suffix in Gothic and Old Saxon, 148. 

Kluge on pronunciation of O.E. 03, 225, 226 ; Scandinavian 
words in O.E., 249. 

Language, continual change in, 14, 373. 

Language, Life of, psychological aspect, 11, 13; physio- 
logical, 11, 13. 

Language, Literary, danger of exclusive study of, 11, 13 ; 
position with regard to spoken language, 12, 340, 
341 ; comparatively archaic, 344 ; sources of, 341. 

Language, Spoken, limitations, 5 ; changes in, 14 ; writing 
and, 5, 62 ; unconscious process of, 61, 62, 63 ; im- 
portance of study of, 10, 11, 13, 206 ; advantage of 
training in facts of, 340; independent life of, 340, 
341 ; influence of literature on, 341 ; adaptability 
of, 346 

Language, Standard, two aspects of history of, 361. 

Language transmission, changes involved in, 65. 

Language, Written, use of term, 341. 

Latin, corruptions in, 12 ; the primitive vowels and diph- 
thongs in, 174 ; the primitive consonants in, 174. 

Leskien asserts inadmissibility of 'exceptions,' 114, 117; 
position of, in linguistic science, 166 ; modifies 'Uber- 
gangstheorie; 177-179. 

Linguistic contact, through literature, 125, 126 ; introduc- 
tion of foreign elements, 122-124. 

Loan-words, development indicated by, 121, 122 ; points 
of interest concerning, 209 ; popular fallacies con- 
cerning, 209 ; test of source of, 210 ; importance of 
form, 245 ; Scandinavian, 248, 249, 281-285 ; Latin, 
239-248; Celtic, 238-239; tests for Scandinavian 
origin of, 285-287. 

London Dialect, Standard English and, 294-298, 342, 343. 

Max Miiller, original home of the Aryans, views on, 171. 

Memory Pictures, 57-59; gradual alteration of, 72; sub- 
conscious, 70, 71. 

'Mistake,' significance of term, 19, 20. 

Napier, Professor, his discovery of Orm's new symbol, 258. 

Obsolete Forms, possible pronunciations of, 363, 364. 

Orm, value of his orthography, 256 ; establishes M.E. 

25—2 



388 SUBJECT INDEX 

quantities, 260, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272; his new 
symbol for back-stop (g), 258. 

Osthoff defines 4 correctness 1 in language, 21 ; views on 
sound change, 83 ; asserts inadmissibility of ' excep- 
tions,' 114 ; position in science of language, 166. 

Passy, views on sound change, 84, 90. 

Paston Letters, Oxford dialect and, 296. 

Paul, remarks on relation of individual speaker to com- 
munity, 103 ; asserts inadmissibility of ' exceptions," 
114 ; position of, in science of language, 166; ' Wellen- 
theorie, 1 views on, 177. 

Philology, comparative, meaning of, 8 ; task of, 141 ; 
advance of science of, 142 ; method of, 143, 144. 

Phonetic Analysis, pronunciation and, 374. 

Phonetic Laws, meaning of term, 112; nature of, 117; 
exceptions to, inadmissible, 114. 

Phonetic practice, 60 ; exercises, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41. 

Phonetic symbols, 50, 51 ; tables of, 52, 53 ; explanation 
of, 54 ; usefulness of, 374. 

Phonetic training, ingenious objections to, 16, 17; im- 
portance of, 15, 374 ; what it involves, 17, 18, 27, 59, 
60; why advantageous, 18, 19; proper basis for, 
27, 60, 61, 339 ; historical linguistic study and, 
339. 

Phonological investigation, nature and importance of, 113. 

Place-names, English, 378, 379. 

Pogatscher, views on use of Latin by Britons, 242, 243. 

Pronunciation, spelling and, 14, 15, 116, 212; sixteenth- 
century, authorities on, 302-304 ; seventeenth-century, 
authorities on, 304, 305 ; eighteenth-century, authori- 
ties on, 306 ; interpretation of authorities on, 307, 
308 ; influence of fashion on, 327, 359 ; varieties 
within Standard Dialect of, 359, 360 ; varieties indi- 
cating difference of dialect, 361 ; English spelling 
and, 363, 377-380 ; vulgarity of i overcarefulness ' 
in, 366, 367 ; difficulties involved in unfamiliar, 
374. 

Pronunciation, Correct, decided by experience, 362, 363. 

Pronunciation, 'Good,' criteria of, 361-368. 



SUBJECT INDEX 389 

Pronunciation, Polite, teaching of, 368-376 ; present 
methods of teaching, criticism of, 369-371. 

Pronunciations, Spelling, 377-379 ; absurdity of, 364-366 ; 
causes of, 365, 377, 378, 380. 

Prose, natural language of good, 345. 

Public Speaking, 346, 347, 348. 

Quantity, 47, 48. 

Reconstruction, possibility of, 142 ; test of accurate, 151 ; 
principles of, 163, 164; necessity of, 206; varying 
methods of, 207 ; Modern period, problem of, 300. 

Reconstructed Forms, value of, 144. 

' Right ' and ' Wrong ' in Language, definition of, 21, 129 ; 
analogy and, 132, 139 ; scientific and practical views 
of, 353 ; constant change in, 353 ; Standard Dialects 
and, 358 ; no ' absolute ' standard of, 361 ; ignorant 
use of terms, 370. 

Rig- Veda, hymns of, 169. 

Salesbury, William, 301. 

Sanscrit, a, an in Lithuanian and, 156, 157 ; sounds in 
Greek and Latin corresponding to a in, 156-159 ; 
palatalization in, 159, 160 ; vowel system less primi- 
tive than Greek, 160, 174; consonants relatively 
primitive in, 174. 

Scherer, views on sound change, 82 ; position of, in science 
of language, 166. 

Schleicher, views on sound change, 82 ; his ' Stammbaum ' 
theory, 175, 178, 180. 

Schmidt, Johann, original home of Aryans, views on, 171 ; 
attacks ' Stammbaum ' theory, 176; ' Wellentheorie,' 
176, 177, 178, 179. 

Schrader accepts Schmidt's ' Wellentheorie,' 177. 

Scotch, sixteenth-century u in dialects of, 328 ; O.E. o 
tense in, 328. 

Scots, distinguished history of, 208. 

Seek, 'beseech' and, 145, 146, 147; 'sought' and, 147- 
150. 

Shakespeare, reconstruction of his pronunciation, 207. 

Sievers, use of term ' bedingt,' 81 ; asserts inadmissibility 
of 'exceptions,' 114; position of, in science of language, 



390 SUBJECT INDEX 

166 ; on pronunciation of O.E. 03, 225 ; on -n- verbs 
in O.E., 284. 

Skeat, on French element in English, 287, 288. 

Sound change, fact of, 14, 15 ; evidence of, in written 
records, 67 ; in cognate forms, 68 ; inaccuracy of 
term, 69 ; process of, 70, 71, 72, 73 ; cause of, 73, 
81; isolative, 73, 74; combinative, 75-77, 214; 
transitoriness of tendencies, 76-78, 373 ; theories in 
explanation of, 82-85 ; caused by foreign contact, 
85-87 ; occupation as factor in, 88 ; inadequacy of 
theories to explain it, 89 ; spread of, 110, 111 ; 
unconscious nature of, 113 ; importance of study of, 
113 ; laws of, 111, 112 ; analogy and, 137. 

Sound changes, Old English, 226, 232, 233 ; West Ger- 
manic affecting Old English, 227-232 ; Middle 
English, 260-265; Modern English, 309, etc. (see 
English, Modern). 

Sound Laws, meaning of term, 77 ; admit of no exceptions, 
114, 117. 

Speech of a Town, how far homogeneous, 99. 

Speech basis, 70 ; factors involved in, 81 ; influence of race 
on, 86 ; influenced by physical type, 87 ; change 
in, 87 ; by occupation, 88 ; foreign sounds modified 
by native, 120, 121. 

Speech communities, meaning of term, 92-93 ; possibilities 
and limitations of change in, 93, 94 ; relative homo- 
geneity within, 94, 109; contact between, 119-121; 
modes of isolation of, 97, 98. 

Speech, ' correct,' popular view of, 21 ; scientific conception 
of, 21, 129. 

Speech family, Aryan, existence of, 8; Aryan, divisions of, 
169 ; conception of, 166-168. 

Speech habits, formation of, 58, 59. 

Speech, Individual, various influences on, 100-102; diverg- 
ence originates from, 103, 104. 

Speech, Living, essentials of, 349. 

Speech sounds, classification of, 28-31 ; processes involved 
in utterance of, 56, 57, 58. 

Spelling, English, fixed, 15 ; pronunciation and, 14, 15, 



SUBJECT INDEX 391 

116, 212; Middle English, 116, 255-259; English 
pronunciation and, 363, 377-380. 
Spelling Pronunciations, absurdity of, 364, 365, 366 ; 
in English, 377-380; causes of, 365, 377, 378, 
380. 
' Stammbaum ' theory, Schleicher and the, 175 ; Johann 
Schmidt, attack on, 176, 177 ; Leskien, views on, 
177, 178. 
Standard, constant shifting of, 353, 359. 
Stereotyped Phrases, 350, 351; effect of use of, 351; 

Lord Chesterfield's opinion of, 351. 
Streitberg on lengthening of original short vowels, 186. 
Stress, 45 ; degrees of, 46 ; distribution of, 46 ; importance 
of, 106; preservation of, 123; Ablaut and, 184; 
doublets due to, 215 ; in Polite English, 375. 
Sweet, improves Organic Method, 28; use of terms 
' narrow ' and ' wide,' 39, 40 ; discovers 4 shifted ' 
vowels, 42 ; his phonetic symbols, 50, 51 ; remarks 
on 'exceptional 1 forms, 132; on pronunciation of 
O.E. c}, 225 ; remarks on -an and -on forms in Old 
English, 229 ; his divisions of Middle English, 253 ; 
on Scandinavian verbs with -n- suffix, 284 ; discusses 
problems of Modern English pronunciation, 309 ; on 
development of au, 333 ; spoken English, indicates 
method of study of, 339; on importance of stress 
and intonation in English, 375. 
Syllable, limits of, 50 ; division, 48, 49. 
Texts, O.E., 217-220 ; M.E., 254, 255. 
Tun]>us-to]?-dent, etc., methods of comparison and recon- 
struction illustrated by, 151-163. 
Verner's Law, 198, 199, 200. 
Voice, management of, in speech, 376. 
Vowels, consonants and, 31 ; analysis of, 37 ; tongue 
activities for, 37 ; muscular activities for, 39 ; lip 
activity for, 40, 41 ; description of, 41, 42 ; positions, 
42 ; difficulty of ' low-front; 38 ; ' shifted,' 42 ; inter- 
mediate varieties of, 43. 
'Vulgarism,' 19. 
Wechsler, views on sound change, 85, 87. 



392 SUBJECT INDEX 

' Wellen' or 'Ubergangstheorie,' Johann Schmidt and the, 
176, 177 ; Schrader, views on, 177 ; Paul, views on, 
177; Leskien, modification of, 177-179. 

Whitney, views on sound change, 82. 

Wright, views on the use of Latin in Britain, 242, 243. 

Wycliff, Literary dialect and, 251 ; Oxford type and, 296, 
297. 



WORD INDEX 

ft = note. =- = derived from. dial. = dialectal, obs. = obsolete. Square 
brackets indicate phonetic spelling. 



Sanskrit. 

abhi-jnu, 193 
aditas, 192 
ajami, 157 
ajnasam, 194 
ajras, 157, 191 
anti, 156 
asti, 157 
asva, 157 
avi-, 157 

bandhus, 156, 162 
bhra-tar, 201 
ca, 157 
catvaras, 160 
dadarsa, 157 
dadati, 192- 
dadhami,192,201 
dadhmas, 192 
damas, 156 
dant-, 155, 161 
devattas, 192 
dhumas, 68 
ditig, 192 
gostha, 193 
hitas, 192 
jambha, 156 



janas, 156 
janu, 193 
jnatas, 194 
kaksa, 160 
kakud, 160 
katara, 157 
madhu, 157 
mati-, 162 
nasa, 191 
pad-, 142 
panca, 160 
pani, 74 
pari -j man, 191 
parinas, 194 
patati, 157 
pati, 157, 198 
pitar, 200 
prnati, 194 
pumas, 194 
sapta, 199 
satam, 112, 162 
sthitas, 193 
stighnute, 201 
stri, 192 
svagru, 200 
tarn, 156 
uksan, 204 
393 



Greek. 

aypos, 157, 191 
<&y«, 157, 191 

a-fcov(o, 202 

ClKTCDp, 191 

avrl, 156 
d-a/cr]0y<;, 199 
(3aLrr) (Thracian), 

201 
yivos, 156 
yepavos, 201 
yc-yvco-afcay, 194 
yvv%, 193 
yovv, 193 
yofi(f)ios f 156 
y6/ii(bos, 156 
ycovia, 193 

hdjJLaCD, 201 

8e8opK6, 157 
SiSofiev, 192 
Stoa/u, 186, 192 
8i-(f>p-os, 190 
80/X09, 156 

&OTO?, 186 

Scoaco, 192 
IS©, 203 



394 

Z&fiai, 190, 203 
ifcarov, 112, 162 
e/cvpd, 200 
elfjui, 157 
evos, 157 
eirL-PS-ai, 190 
67rra, 199 
epyoi/, 203 
eW, 157 
tyvyov, 182 
^%e, 191 
euros, 187 
06TO?, 186 

Ovjjbos, 68 
L-ara/jLev, 193 
terra jjli, 186 
XarrffM, 193 
icaphia, 199 
fcupia/cd, 240 
Xe7&), 182 
XiySe?*/, 192 
\6yo?, 182 
Xv/co?, 290 
/W0u, 157 
fjLeo-cros, 203 
w}-/*a, 202 

6§fJLT), 191 

o-Swt-, 155, 161 
oSa)S?7, 191 
oft/17, 202 
&?, 157, 202 
07r-&)7r-a, 191 
ocrcre, 191 
0S9, 202 
oyjroficu, 191 
Tmrepa, 182, 291 
Trar^'p, 182, 190, 

200 
Trefa, 190 



WORD INDEX 

ireiOto, 202 

7rez/(9epo?,156,162, 

163, 203 
rrevre^ 160 
irecraapes, 160 
irhe-rai, 157 
TrXrj-pes, 194 
■ttoSos, 190 
77Wt9, 157, 198 

7rOT€pOS, 157 
7TOU5, 142 
TTpO^VV, 193 

irpwi, 194 

ttwc (Doric), 190 

pr]rr)p, prjrcop, 183, 

184 
a-raro?, 186, 193 
arec^co, 201 
crrr/aco, 193 
(TcpaWcD, 198 
t^, 157 

TL0€fl6V, 192 

™%u, 186, 192, 
201, 202 

TOZA, 156 

(f>ap,ev, 193 
c/>a/u (Doric), 182 

(j)€pCO, 190 

(frevyto, 182 

(fyrj/jLi, 193 

<^op^, 190 

(ppa-rr)p, 190 

(ppd-T(op, 190,201, 

202 
(f)pd-rp-a, 190 
(f)coyco, 192 
^0)1/97, 182 
^p, 190 
tSf 191 



Latin. 

actor, 191 
ager, 157 
ago, 157, 191 
ambages, 191 
ante, 156 
appodix, 190 
auctor, 190 
auris, 202 
cactimen, 160 
Caesar, 241 
capistrum, 244 
caseus, 241 
centum, 112, 162, 

163 
colonia, 244 
coquere, 158 
coquina, 76, 244 
cordis, 199 
coxa, 160 
cuculla, 244 
cucurbita, 242 
Danuvius, 201 
dare, 182 
datio, 192 
datus, 182, 192 
dedi, 192 
dent-, 155,161,163 
domare, 201 
domus, 156 
donare, 192 
donum, 182, 192 
edo, 203 
equus, 157 
est, 157 
examen, 191 
facio, 192 
foenuculum, 244 





WORD INDEX 


395 


fama, 193 


oleum, 234 


Gallo-Roman. 


fari, 193 


ovis, 157, 202 


Moguntiacum, 


feci, 192 


pater, 190 


158 


femella, 134 


patria, 122 


Vosegus, 158 


fero, 190 


patris, 190 


ficus, 241 


pedem, 190 


Old French. 


f Ido, 202 


pedes, 203 


femelle, 134 


fors, 190 


pes, 142, 190, 




for tuna, 190 


290 


French. 


frater, 202 


petit, 157 


beau, 53 


fumus, 68 


piscis, 113 


bete, 48 


fur, 190 


plenus, 194 


bon, 30 


genus, 156 


propositus, 244 


but, 41, 51 


hominem, 291 


psalmus, 244 


content, 54 


hospitis, 198 


que, 157 


de, 53 


hostis, 202 


quinque, 160 


dur, 41 


lassus, 192 


rego, 239 


enfant, 76 


marmor, 244 


regula, 79 


ete, 39, 40 


medius, 203 


rex, 239 


fin, 30 


memini, 182 


ruta, 244 


fini, 31 


ment-, 162 


sagire, 202 


francais, 35 
genie, 123 


men turn, 199 


satus, 192 


mercatum, 248 


sedere, 190, 203 


jamais, 35 
lune, 38 


moneo, 182 


sedimus, 190 


moneta, 241 


semen, 192 


rendre, 35 


moratum, 244 


senex, 157 


si, 53 


mutare ( > moi- 


sevi, 192 


un, 30 


tare), 202 


sodalis, 190 


vu, 41, 51 


napus, 241 


stamen, 193 




nares, 191 


stare, 193 


Old Irish. 


nasus, 191 


statim, 193 


ag, 191 


nere, 202 


status, 193 


brocc, 239 


nidus, 190, 203 


strata via, 241 


cethir, 160 


nosco, 194 


tabula, 242 


drui, 239 


nox, 157 


tego, texi, 182 


ri, rig, 239 


oculus, 191 


uncia, 245 




odor, 191 


unus > oinos, 


Irish. 


offendix,162, 163, 


202 


donn, 239 


203 


veho, vexi, 186 


iasc, 113 



396 



WORD INDEX 



Welsh. 

dwn, 239 

Llandudno, 35 

Gothic. 

ains, 202 
akrs, 157, 191 
andbundnan, 154 
anj>ar, 152, 153 
augo, 228 
auhsa, 204 
auso, 202 
awistr, 193, 202 
bairan, 190 
bandi, 154 
bar, 190 
batists, 150 
batiza, 284 
baur, 190 
beidan, 202 
berum, 190 
bindan, 154, 203 
brojiar, 190, 201, 

202 
bro]?rahans, 190 
bug-jan, 148 
dags, 227 
dauns, 68 
domjan, 10 
drobjan, 148 
fadar, 200 
-fajjs, 198 
fodjan, 148 
fotus, 142, 190 
fruma, 194 
fulljan, 148 
fulls, 194 
gabinda, 154 



gade]?s, 192, 201, 

202 
gaf, 182 
gaits, 228 
gam 6 tj an, 148 
gamunds, 162 
gasinpa, 154 
gasin])ja, 152 
gastim (dat.), 290 
gasts, 202 
gatamjan, 201 
gebum, 182 
giban, 182 
haims, 228 
hairto, 199 
handus, 154, 183 
hansa, 152 
haubij?, 228 
hausjan, 202, 236 
-hin])an, 154, 183 
huggrjan, 148 
hund, 112, 153, 

162 
hunsl, 247 
hunps, 154 
juggs, 153 
kaisar, 241 
kann, 194 
kaus, 182 
kinnus, 76 
kiusan, 182 
kniu, 193 
knussjan, 193 
kuni, 77, 234 
kunnaida, 194 
kun])S, 153 
kusuni, 182 
lats, 192 
letan, 192 



maidjan, 202 
mana-seps, 192 
midjis, 203 
munps, 152, 153, 

199 
namnjan, 148 
nefla, 202 
paida, 201 
reiki, 239 
reiks, 239 
sandj an, 154 
sat, 190 
satjan, 148 
setum, 190 
sibun, 199 
sin])s, 152, 154, 

232 
skapjan, 199 
sokjan, 147, 202 
staj>s, 193 
steigan, 201 
stols, 193 
tun))us, 151, 153, 

161, 163 
pahta, 228, 231 
j^agkjan, 231 
]?ana, 156 
unkja, 245 
war) an, 148 
-windan, 154 
-winnan, 154 
wulfs, 290 

Old Norse. 

bleikr, 286 
fotr, 142 
geva, 279 
heimsocn, 283 
hvltna, 284 



WORD INDEX 



397 



liete, 261 
lat, 261 
mjukr, 287 
skamt, 285 
soma, 282 
sveinn, 283 
tannr, 153 
veikr, 286 

Old West Scan- 
dinavian. 

blikna, 284 
bustla, 284 
dogg, 286 
egg, 286 
hoggua, 286 
tryggr, 286 

Old Swedish, 
batna, 284 

Swedish. 

babbla, 284 
dagg, 286 
dangla (dial.), 284 
en, 167 
fern, 167 
fyra, 167 
hora, 167 
horde, 167 
komma, 167 
moder. 167 
tre, 167 
twa, 167 

Danish, 

dag, 167 
sang, 167 
skygge, 286 



synge, 167 
sunget, 167 

Old English. 

Abbod, 247 
secer, 191, 227 
seg, 286 
^lfheah, 378 
aelmesse, 247 
a§r, 262 
aid, 45, 236, 260, 

323 
an-buend, 247 
an-setl, 247 
ar, 269 

a-wsecnian, 284 
bacan, 192 
bascere, 192 
b^er, 190, 213 
bseron, 190, 214 
band, 273 
barda, 281 
beald, bald, 45, 

236 
bee, 133 
beginnan, 278 
be~o, 319 
beran, 190, 213, 

259, 319 
beter, 284 
betst, 150 
bidan, 202 
bindan, 154, 203 
blac, 286 
blod, 323 
boc, 192 
boren, 190, 214 
braac, 213 
braej>an, brej>an, 6 



brae]?, bre]>, 6 
breogo, 79 
breost, 272 
bringan, 231 
brocc, 239 
brohte, 231, 274 
bropor, 134, 201, 

202 
brycg, 238, 258 
brysan, 264 
byegan, 148 
byrgean, 237 
caefester, 244 
cald, 75, 236 
camb, 156, 235 
casere, 241 
ceac, 257 
ceaf, cafu, 277 
ceald, 231, 236 
ceapmenn, 270 
ceaster, cagster, 

244 
celan, 136 
cele, 236, 269 
celnesse, 136 
cepte, 270 
cester, 257 
ciele, 75, 236 
ciese, 241 
cietel, cetel, 277 
cild, 7, 235 
cildru, 7 
cin(n), 76, 77 
cirice, 240 
clsenlice, 271 
clawu, 333 
clene, 236 
eleopode, 79 
cnawan, 194, 274 



WORD INDEX 



cnear, 249, 281 
cneo, 193 
col, 136 
coren, 269 
costnian, 284 
cran, 201 
cugele, 244 
cu]?, 153 
crseft, 287 
cwen, 259, 319 
cwene, 259 



cwicu. 



cweocu, 



c(w)ucu, 79 
cy, 133 

cycene, 76, 244 
cynn, 77, 233 ?i., 

234 
cyrce, 237, 238, 

277 
cyrfet, 242 
daad, 192, 201, 

202, 236, 263 
d8eg,183,227,265 
daegas, 80 
daegum, 80 
dagas, 265 
dagian, 265, 284 
deaf, 265 
dea(w), 286 
ded, 236, 263 
deman, 7, 10, 135 
deofol, 271 
discipul, 247 
dogor, 183 
dohter, 266 
dom, 7, 10 
domne, 247 
dragan, 267, 274, 

333 



dream, 262 
drefan, 148 
dry, 239 
dunn, 239 
dust, 68, 234 
dystig, 234 
Eadward, 270 
eage, 228 
eagena, 289 
eahta, 231 
eald, aid, 45, 236 
earm, 231 
eaSgete, 269 
efel, 259, 319 
efete, 267 
ele, 234 
eofor, 79 
eolh, 231 
eor]?e, 231 
etan, 203, 269 
fseder, 134, 190, 

200, 264, 269 
faesten, 284 
fsestenian, 284 
faet, 78, 280 
fatu, 78 
featu, 78 
fedan, 148, 149 
feld, 319 
feohtan, 231 
feond, 272 
fet, 203, 234 
fetor, 79 
f Ic-beam, 241 
f Indan, 235 
finugl, 244 
fiscas, 133 
flemde, 271 
fo, feh]>, 234 



foda, 149, 263 
forgeofan, 80 
forfor, 263 
forloren, 269 
forma, 194 
for]), 259 
fot, 142, 232, 234 
fox, 234 
freo, 319 
freond, 272 
freoSu-, 79 
friSu, 79 
from, 194 
full, 149, 234 
fulluht, 248 
fulwian, 247 
fulwiht, 248 
furSor, 150 
fvlcian, 249 
fyllan, 148, 149, 

234 
fyl}>, 234, 271 
fyrst, 150 
fyxen, 234, 280 
gastlic, 137 
gat, 228 
gear, 279 
gefan, 278, 279 
gelajmng, 248 
gellce, 138 
gelt, 237 
genoge, 267 
genoh, 258, 266 
ges, 8, 234 
gesl]?, 152 
geslaegen, 234 
gest, 278 
getan, 278 
getriewe, 286 



WORD INDEX 



399 



giccan, 277 
gicel, 277 
giefan, 54, 80, 

258, 278, 279 
gielpan, 278 
giest, 278 
-gietan, 278 
gif, 277 
gim-stan, 277 
god, 234 
god, 363 
godspellere, 248 
gold, 204, 234 
gos, 8, 152, 232, 

233, 234 
goshafoc, 271 
gyden, 234 
gylden, 234 
gylt, 237 
hsefde, 259 
hse}>, 263, 319 
hafoc, 267 
ham, 213, 228, 

260 
hamsocn, 283 
hand, 154, 260 
handgeweorc, 277 
he, 319 
heafod, 228 
heawan, 286 
heh, 266 
heolstor, 79 
heorot, 79 
heorte, 199 
her, 135, 319 
heran, 236, 257, 

259 
here, 233 
hferan, hyran, 236 



hie, hira, heom, 

287 
hlaford, 259 
hlahhan, 333 
hnitu, 79 
hopu, 269 
hos, 152 
hrycg, 238 
hund, 153 
hus, 257 
husl, 247 
husl-]>egn, 248 
hu]>, 154 
hwgel, 275 
hwa^te, 275 
hwier, 135 
hyd, 287 
hyngr(i)an, 148 
hyran, 257, 280 
laetan, 192 
lamb, 260 
land, 228 
leornung, 292 
lie, 138 

Lin(d)cylene, 244 
lond, 228 
lytle, 270 
maesse, 247 
mse]?, 227 
mann, 228 
mara, 262 
market, 248 
martyr, 247 
mearm-stan, 244 
medu, 157 
meole, 79 
merig, 237 
metan, 148, 149 
mete, 319 



mette, 270 
midd, 203 
modor, 134 
mona, 76, 229 
monap, 271 
monn, 228, 233 
mora]?, 244 
gemot, 149 
ffluf, 152, 199 
mynet, 241 
myrig, 237 
na^dl, 202 
nsep, 241 
nama, 149, 228, 

270, 291 
nemnan, 148, 149 
nest, 190, 203 
nigun, 79 
niman, 229, 287 
nimanne, 80 
to niomanne, 80 
noma, 228 
nomon, 229 
open, 323 
ora, 249, 281 
6})er, 152, 153 
oxa, 204 
pad, 201 
psell, 247 
papa, 247 
ploges, 267 
ploh, 266 
prafost, 244 
racu, 214 
raran, 262 
reahte, 214 
reccean, 214 
regn, 265 
regol, 79 



400 



WORD INDEX 



reogol, 79 
rice, 239 
rude, 244 
sacerd, 247 
ssed, sed, 236 
sselan, 234 
sset, 186 
saeton, 190 
sagu, 333 
sal, 234 
sar, 260 
sc(e)amu, 213 
sceap, seep, 133 
scearn, 247 
sceawan, 286 
s6eid, 236, 319 
scield, scyld, 236 
scieran, 247 
se, seo, past, 293 
sealm, 244 
sedan, 147 
sec(e)an, 145, 146, 

149 
secst, sec]?, 276 
sed, 319 
seman, 282 
sendan, 154 
senn, 237 
seofon, 79 
sett an, 148 
sicol, 79 
sinu, 79 

si>, 152, 154, 232 
sittan, 190, 203 
slepte, 270 
snetor, 237 
snytor, 237 
soft, 152 
softe, 232, 270 



sohte, 147, 149, 
270 

sona, 323 
sot, 186, 190 
sp(r)sec, 213 
sprecol, 79 
stan, 323 
stanas, 289 
stigan, 201 
street, 241 
sunu, 257 
sunum (dat.), 290 
swan, 283 
Swegen, 283 
sweger, 200 
sweord, swurd, 

237 
sweotol, 79 
swete, 269 
sword, 237 
synn, 237 
taefl, 242 
temian, 201 
tip, 8 
toh, 274 
t6J>, 8, 151, 153, 

161, 163, 232 
treowe, 286 
pxc, 234 
]>eccean, 234 
pencan, 228 
jeof, 265 
j?eon, 232 
J)6hte, 228, 231 
Israeli, 285 
|>rotu, 323 
Jmhte, 232 
]?yncean, 232 
us, 232 



utmest, 270 
wascen, 284 
wasgn, 265 
wsepn, 227 
wagtail, 319 
wseter, 264, 269 
wak, 286 
wald, 237, 266 
weald, 236, 266 
weg, 258, 265 
weodu, wudu, 78, 

79 
weor]?, wur]', 237 
werian, 148 
weron, 262 
wetan, 319 
wiflic, 138 
windan, 154 
winnan, 154 
wiodu, 78 
wiorj?e]>, 231 
wisdom, 270 
wiur)>il>, 231 
wor[>, 237 
wudu, 78, 79, 289 
wulf, 290 
wyrcan, 257 
Wyrtgeorn, 244 
yfel, 287 
ynce, 245, 246 
yndse, 245 
yntse, 245, 246 

Middle English, 

apperen, 319 
appferen, 319 
ansuer, 262 
auenture, 263 
aungel, 267, 333 



WORD INDEX 



401 



babblen, 284 
be, 319 

beren, 259, 319 
besechen, 145 
beseken, 145 
bleu, 329 
bliknen, 284 
blok, 286 
blud, 263 
bond, 273 
brest, 272 
brigge, 258 
brofte, 274 
brugge, 258 
burien, 237 
bustlen, 284 
caf, 277 
cause, 333 
chappmenn, 270 
chaunce, 123 n. 
chaunge, 123 n. 
chefe, 319 
cheke, 257 
chele, 269 
Chester, 257 
chetel, 277 
chiefe, 319 
child, 272 
childre, 7 
children, 7 
chilldre, 272 
chirche, 277 
chold, 266 
chosenn, 269 
clawe, 333 
clennlike, 271 
conclud, 263 
costnen, 285 
court, 257 



dai, 265, 266 
dame, 213, 261, 

270 
daunger, 333 
daungerous, 267 
dawen, 265 
dawes, 265 
dawnen, 284 
day, 265 
dayes, 265 
deffles, 271 
dei, 266 
depthe, 270 
deu, 286, 329 
douhter, 266 
drawen, 267, 274, 

333 
dreme, 262 
dyath, 265 
Edward, 270 
e^ene, 289 
ei, 286 
ere, 262 
etenn, 269 
efigete, 269 
euel, 259 
eute, 267 
evel, 259, 319 
fader, 134, 264, 

270, 271 
faderr, 269 
fame, 261 
f&Ser, 317 
feld, 268, 319 
fend, 272 
field, 268 
fillthe, 271 
findenn, 268 
flemmde, 27 



fless, flessch, 259 
forfure, 263 
for-}ete(n), 

yete(n), 277 
fortone, 263 
fre, 319 
frend, 272 
frendschipe, 272 
fude, 263 
g«fen, 278 
gastli, 137 
gastlich(e), 137 
gate, 287 
5 elle(n), yelle(n), 

277 
3elpe(n), yelpe(n), 

277 
gentil, 123 n. 
3 ere, yere, 277 
5 if, 277 
3im, 277 
3iuen, 258 
god, 258, 323 
goshauk, 271 
gosling, 270 
gost, 137 
gud, 263 
guod, 258 
haggen, 286 
hallghenn, 271 
halwen, 271 
hame, 262 
hand, 268 
handfull, 235, 272 
hanten, 335 
hauk, 267 
haunt, 333 
haunten, 335 
heeth, 260 

26 



402 



WORD INDEX 



hefde. 259 
heih, 266 
hem, 287 
heren, 259, 280 
hep, 319 
hieren, 257 
hir, 287 
hit, 275 
horn, 213, 260 
hond, 260, 268 
hope, 269 
hound, 268 
hous, 257 
huiren, 257, 280 
hund, 268 
huswif, 271 
hwlten, 284 
icche(n), 277 
icching, 277 
i-cume, 277 
if, 277 
iky], 277 
ille, 287 
inogh, 258 
inouh, 266 
inowe, 267 
itt, 275 
jaundice, 333 
joie, 123 n. 
jointe, 123 n. 
juge, 123 n. 
jugement, 258 
keppte, 270 
kingene, 292 
kingue, 258 
kneu, 329 
lamb, 260 
lambre, 272 
] a mmbre, 260 



land, 273 
lates, 261 
lauerd, 259 
laughen, 333 
legges, 275 
licour ) 12g 
licour J 
llf, 259 
little, 270 
lomb, 260, 272 
lond, 273 
long, 273 
maner, 262 
maneir, 262 
mar, 262 
meoc, 287 
mete, 319 
mette, 270 
monthe, 271 
more, 261 
name, 260, 270 
neir, 262 
old, 260, 323 
open, 323 
ore, 269 
plesand, 293 
plouh, 266 
plowes, 267 
quale, 275 
queen, 259 
quen, 319 
queue, 259 
quet, 275 
rair, 262 
r&Ser, 75, 317 
rein, 266 
rude, 263 
sawe, 333 
sayand, 293 



scatteren, 283 
schame, 213 
scheld, 319 
schip, 259 
sechen, 145, 146 
seken, 145, 147 
sekst, 276 
sekp, 276 
seldcene, 257 
semelich, 282 



semen, 



282 



semli, 282 
serrfenn, 256 
serruen, 256 
shatteren, 283 
skill, 287 
skinn, 287 
sleppte, 270 
soffte, 270 
sohhte, 270 
sone, 257 
sone, 263 
sor, 260 
ssip, 259 
ston, 291, 323 
stones, 289 
stoon, 260 
Strang, 268 
strong, 268, 273 
swete, 269 
syngand, 293 
tahte, 336 
takenn, 287 
pe, feo, ]>et, 293 
thinken, 259 
])rote, 323 
]>yef, 265 
til, 287 
uader, 280 



WORD INDEX 



403 



uor]>, 259 
utmost, 270 
vertue | ^ 
vertue J 
vorlore(n), 269 
wgeld, 266 
wain, 265 
war, 262 
wat, 261 
water, 264, 271 
we3, 258 
wei, 265 
were, 262 
wigt, 285 
wimman, 271 
wissdom, 270 
wode, 289 
wok, 286 
wurchen, 257 
ylde, 277 
ym-ston, 277 
zechen, 280 

English. 

ale, 230 

all, 267, 312, 333 
Alphege, 377 
alter [Site], 360 
Alvescot [olskat, 

etc.], 379 
among [amarj, 

etc.], 361 
Ardingley, 378 
ass, 229 
Atterbury, 293 
aught, 335 
aunt, 267 
ball, 334 
band, 273 



bat, 38 
bath, 317 
batten, 284 
bawl, 267 
to bear, 214 
bee, 60 

begin, 278, 279 
beseech, 145, 147, 

276 
beseek (dial.), 145 
bet, 38, 39, 43 
better, 284, 318 
bird, 38, 53 
bishopric, 239 
bit, 38, 40, 43 
bite, 49 
bitterly, 131 
bleak, *286 
blood, 307, 325, 

327, 361 
blue, 329, 330 
boil, 323 
bold, 237 
bond, 273 
book, 133, 324, 

325, 327, 361 
book-case, 48 
boot, 38, 42, 53 
boots, 360 
bought, 337 
boys, 130 
brandy pawnee, 

74 
bread, 321 
break, 321 
breath, 6, 318 
breathe, 6, 318 
bridge, 238 
broft (dial.), 274 



broil, 322 
broken, 213 
brother, 130, 134, 

327 
brought, 336 
bruise, 264, 330 
buck, 325 
buik (Sc), 53 
bull, 326 
bury, 237 
bush, 41 
but, 53, 314, 322, 

325, 326 
butcher, 41 
Cabul, 74 
calf, 335 
call, 333, 334 
calm, 335 
came, 131 
can, 313 
cane, 314 
car, 35 
cast, 313 
cat, 53, 130 
Cawnpore, 74 
chance, 334 
charmed, 131 
cheese, 241 
child, 7, 235, 272 
children, 7, 131, 

235, 272 
chill, 75, 136, 236 
chin, 76, 77 
chivalry, 364 
church, 237 
Cirencester, 378 
Clark, 318 
clerk, 74, 317, 

318, 361 

26—2 



404 



WORD INDEX 



cletch (dial.), 277 
clutch (dial.), 277 
coffee, 360 
cold, 75, 136, 237 
contradict, 127 
cool, 136 
to cool, 136 
coolness, 136 
cough [kof, etc.] 

360 
courtesy [kotasi, 

etc.], 360 
cows, 133 
cure, 330 
cut, 327 
dag (dial.), 285 
daggle (dial.), 284 
dame, 213, 270 
dams, 133 
dance, 334, 360 
dangle, 284 
daughter, 336 
daunt, 334 
dead, 321 
deed, 236, 263 
deem, 7, 135, 137 
Derby, 317, 318, 

361 
desire, 366 
dew, 286, 329 
disaster, 127 
ditch, 276 
dog, 130 
-dom, 135 
doom, 7, 135, 137 
draught, 325 
draw, 274 
druid, 239 
duke, 330 



dust, 68 
eat, 269 

eave (dial.), 278 
egg, 286 
enow, 267 
envelope, 123 
face, 259, 317 
falcon, 364 
falconry, 364 
fall, 333, 334 
far, 317 
father, 38, 39, 42, 

53,54,74,130, 

134, 269, 360 
feet, 137 
female, 134 
few, 330 
field, 268 
fiend, 272 
find, 268 
fine, 322 
fish, 113, 133 
fishes, 134 
flaunt, 334 
fleck (dial.), 276 
flick (dial.), 276 
flesh, 133, 272 
fling, 131, 132 
flitch, 276 
flock, 133 
flood, 325 
flung, 131, 132 
food, 133 
fool, 324, 328 
foot, 137, 324, 

327 
forehead [fmd, 

etc.], 365, 378 
forlorn, 135 



forsworn, 136 
forward, 378 
friend, 272, 318, 

319 
frighten, 284 
full, 325, 326, 327, 



gall, 312 
gave, 131 
geese, 8 
get, 278 
ghastly, 137 
ghostly, 137 
gif (dial.), 278 
gift, 278 

gilpie (dial), 278 
give, 278, 279 
gladden, 284 
good, 31, 35, 324, 

325 
goose, 8 
grant, 334 
great, 321 
Greenwich [grm- 

idz, etc.], 365 
ground, 73 
guest, 258, 278 
guide, 322 
gut, 325 
hale, 311 
hall, 334 
hand, 272 
handiwork, 277 
hang, 273 
hardly, 131 
hat, 311 
haw, 334 
haunch, 267, 334 
haunt, 267, 334 



WORD INDEX 



405 



haye, 46 

head, 53, 321 

hear, 167, 236 

heard, 167, 318 

heart, 317, 318 

hearth, 317, 318 

heath, 263 

(h)eave (dial.), 
278 

Helingly, 378 

herd, 133 

here, there, every- 
where, 131, 134 

here, 131, 135 

hew, 286 

hit (Sc.), 275 

horse, hoarse, 16 

hot, 53, 54 

hound, 268 

house, 73 

housen (dial.), 292 

houses, 131 

humorous, [ju- 
m9ras,etc.],360 

humour, 127 

hundred, 112 

icicle, 277 

ill, 131 

inch, 245 

itch, 277 

jaundice, 267,334 

jaunt, 334 

jest, 275 

join, 322, 323 

joint, 322 

joy, 275 

judge, 275 

ken, 314 

kernel, colonel, 16 



kettle, 277 
Kilconquahar,378 
kin, 77 
king, 35, 134 
kirk (Sc), 277 
knave, 337 
knew, 329 
Knowsley, 379 
lamb, 235, 272, 

365 
lambs, 133 
lance, 334 
land, 273 
laughter, 335, 337 
Launcelot, 334 
launch, 334 
laundry, 267, 334 
lawful, 334 
learn [Imi, etc.], 

318, 361 
leave, 320 
light, 366 
-like, 138 
Lincoln, 244 
line, 322 
literature [litara- 

tja, etc.], 365 
loch (Sc), 32, 35 
long, 229, 273 
look, 325 
loose, 324 
lorn, 136 
lose, 135, 136 
love, 365 
luck, 325 
lust, 325 
man, 132 
manlike, 138 
manly, 138 



maw, 334 
meat, 320 
men, 132, 318 
merry, 237 
mice, 131 
midge (dial.), 276 
Midhurst, 378 
mirth, 237 
moon, 76 
mother, 130, 134, 

327 
mud, 325, 326 
muse, 330 
name, 260, 270, 

317 
nim (dial), 287 
nonce, for the, 293 
nut, 327 
of, 214, 215 
off, 214, 215 
oil, 323 
old, 45, 237 
pail, 332 
Parma — Palmer, 

16 
pass, 313 
past, 314 
phonograph, 127 
placed, 131 
pleasure, 35 
plough, 266 
poignant [poi- 

nant, etc.], 365 
priest, 272 
prime, 366 
primrosen (dial.), 

292 
psalm, 335 
pull, 325,326,327 



406 


WORD INDEX 




punt, 326 


seemly, 282 


telegraph, 127 


pure [pj5, etc.], 


seg (dial.), 276 


telephone, 127 


360 


sent, 131 


the, 112 


put, 53, 326, (Sc.) 


servant, 318 


their, they, them, 


53 


set, 318 


287 


quality, 308 


shame, 213 


there, 135 


qualm, 335 


sheep, 133 


think, 29, 32 


quantity, 308 


shemale (pop.), 


this, 29 


queen (Sc), 134 


134 


thoft (dial.), 274 


railway, 360 


shield, 236 


thought, 336 


rang, 131 


ship, 35 


threw, 330 


rather, 74, 317 


shoe, 324 


thunder, 325 


red, 321 


sing, 29, 33, 35, 


til (dial.), 287 


redden, 284 


131, 167 


time, 322 


rhyme, 366 


sit, 39 


told, 131 


ridge, 238, 276 


small, 312 


tooth, 8, 151, 161 


righteous [mitjas, 


sought, 147 


t'other, the (obs.), 


etc.], 365 


southern [saftan, 


294 


ring, 131 


etc.], 365 


tough, 274 


root, 323 


spoken, 213 


trees, 130 


Rudge, 238 


spoon [spun, etc.], 


trig (dial.), 286 


rule, 330 


323, 327, 361 


true, 286 


rung, 131 


star, 317 


Tuesday, 330 


saint, St., 215 


steak, 321 


until, 287 


Sanders, 334 


stick, 132 


vase, 74 


sang, 131, 167, 


straw, 334 


vat, 280 


273 


street, 241 


vaunt, 334 


salt, 267 


strong, 229, 273 


virtue [vXtju, 


Saunders, 334 


stuck, 132 


etc.], 361 


saw, 53, 60 


stupid, 330 


vixen, 280 


scag (dial.), 286 


suffer, 325 


Wadhurst, 378 


scant, 285 


sung, 131, 167 


wall, 334 


scug (dial.), 286 


tail, 332 


wane, 314 


sea, 31 


tane and the 


was, 314 


sedge, 276 


tither,the(Sc), 


water, 269 


see, 38, 39, 53 


294 


weak, 286 


seech (dial.), 145 


taught, 335 


weald, 266 


seed, 236 


taunt, 334 


weet (Sc), 319 


seek, 145, 147, 276 


teeth, 8 


well, 131 



WORD INDEX 



407 



went, 131 
wet, 319 
where, 135 
wife, 322 
wifelike, 138 
wifelv, 138 
wight (dial.), 285 
wine, 322 
winefat, 280 
wold, 237, 266 
womanly, 138 
wood, 324 
wrath [r5J), etc.], 

361 
write, 337 
wrote, 131 
yclept, 277 
yeave (dial, obs.), 

278 
yeavey(dial. obs.), 

278 

Old Saxon. 

ahto, 231 
akkar, 227 
bindan, 203 
crano, 201 
ertha, 231 
etan, 203 
fallan, 198 
fulij^a, 234 
gast, 202 
jung, 153 
mano, 229 
middi, 203 
riki, 239 
sibun, 199 
sittian, 203 
sokian, 147 



strata, 241 
thlhan, 232 
werk, 203 

Old Frisian, 
jung, 153 

Dutch. 

dag, 167 
drie, 167 
een, 167 
hoorde, 167 
hooren, 167 
komme(n), 167 
moeder, 167 
twee, 167 
vier, 167 
vijf, 167 
zingen, 167 
zong, 167 
ge-zongen, 167 

Old High German. 

acchar, 227 
ahto, 231 
andar, 152 
arm, 231 
bintan, 154 
bitan, 202 
chasi, 241 
chirihha, 240 
cheisar, 241 
chund, 153 
churbizz, 242 
dahta, 228 
denken, dachta, 

231 
dihan, 232 
dunst, 234 



erda, 229 
ewist, 193 
fallan, 198 
fehtan, 231 
fuoz, 142 
gans, 152, 232 
gast, 202 
geiz, 228 
gisindo, 152 
gitriuwi, 286 
hansa, 152 
hant, 154 
heim, 228 
heri-hunda, 154 
houbit, 228 
houwan, 286 
hunt, 153 
jung, 153 
kalt, 231 
kocchon, 158 
kunst, 194 
mad, 227 
Maginza, 158 
mano, 229 
metu, 157 
mund, 152 
mus, 112 
nadala, 202 
namum, 229 
nasa, 191 
nest, 203 
ouga, 228 
rihhi, 239 
samfto, 152, 232 
sind, 152, 232 
sizzen, 203 
strazza, 241 
suohhan, 147 
tac, 227 



408 



WORD INDEX 



tat, 202 
tou, 286 
tuomian, 10 
uns, 232 
vinnan, 154 
vintan, 154 
vruo, 194 
wafan, 227 
Wascono wait, 1 58 
were, 203 
zabal, 242 
zand, 151, 153, 
161,163,232 

Middle High 
German. 

elch, 231 

German. 

alt, 45 
blume, 53 
drei, 167 
ei, 286 
ein, 167 
fiinf, 167 f 
genie [Jem], 123 



hat, 53 

horen, horte, 167 
kase, 241 
kommen, 167 
lohn, 53 
maus, 112 
mutter, 167 
reich, 239 
sang, 167 
schauen, 286 
singen, 167 
sorge, 35 
stock, 53 
ge-sungen, 167 
tag, 167 
traue, 286 
vaterland, 122 
vier, 167 
zwei, 167 

Lithuanian. 

avimis, 290 
avis, 157, 158 
bendras, 156, 162, 

163, 203 
dantis, 155, 161 



esmi, 157 
esti, 157 
keturi, 160 
medus, 157 
naktis, 157, 158 
-patis, 157 
pilnas, 194 
pirmas, 194 
senas, 157 
szimtas, 112, 162, 

163 
zindti, 194 

Old Slavonic. 

dy-mu, 68 
nosti, 158 
ovitsa, 158 
sedeti, 190 

Russian. 

[lojad], 35 
otichestvo, 122 

Finnish, 
kulta, 204 



LIST OF AUTHORITIES 
REFERRED TO 

[This list does not include the monographs, etc., enumerated in the lists 
in Chapters XII. and XIV.] 

Bechtel : Hauptprobleme der indogerm. Lautlehre seit 
Schleicher, 1892. 

Bell, Melville : Visible Speech. 

Bjorkman : Scandinavian Loan- Words in Middle English, 
Part I., Halle, 1900. 

Bofp, F. : Vergleichende Grammatik (3rd ed.) ; Vocalismus, 
1836. 

Brate, E. : Nordische lehnworter im Ormulum, Beitr. X. 
(1884), 1-80. 

Bremer, O. : Ethnographie der germ. Stamme, 2 1900. 

Brugmann : Griechische Grammatik, 3 1 900 ; Grundriss 
der Vergleichenden Grammatik der Indogerman- 
ischen Sprachen (2nd ed.), Bd. I. (Lautlehre), 1897 ; 
Kurze Vergleichende Grammatik der Indogerman- 
ischen Sprachen, Bd. I. (Lautlehre), 1902 ; Zum 
heutigen Stand der Sprachwissenschaft, 1 885 ; Zur 
Frage nach den Verwandtschaftsverhaltnissen der Idg. 
Spr. (in Techmer's Zeitschrift fiir allgemeine Sprach- 
wissenschaft I.). 

Bulbring, K. D. : Altenglisches Elementarbuch. I. Laut- 
lehre, Heidelberg, 1902. 

Darmsteter : La Vie des Mots, 1887. 

Dibelujs : John Capgrave und die englische Schriftsprache, 
Anglia XXIII., p. 152, etc. 

Dieter: Laut- und Formenlehre d. altgermanischen 
Dialekte, vol. i., 1898. 

409 



410 LIST OF AUTHORITIES REFERRED TO 

Ellis, A. J. : Early English Pronunciation, Parts I.-IV., 

1869-1874. 
Greenough and Kittredge : Words and their Ways in 

English Speech, 1902. 
Grimm : Deutsche Grammatik, vols, i.-iv., 1822-1837. 
Hargreaves : The Addlington Dialect. Heidelberg, 1904. 
Hirt : d. Idg. Ablaut, 1900 ; Griechische Grammatik, 

1902 ; Verwandtschaftsverhaltnisse der Indoger- 

manen, in Indogermanische Forschungen IV=, pp. 36- 

45 ; Urheimat der Indogerm., in Indog. Forsch. I. 
Jespersen : Lehrbuch der Phonetik, 1904. 
Koeppel : Spelling Pronunciations : Bemerkungen iiber 

den Einfluss des Schriftbildes auf den Laut im 

Englischen. Strassbourg, 1901. (Quellen u. Forsch- 
ungen, Bd. 89). 
Kaluza, M. : Historische Grammatik der Englischen 

Sprache, vol. i. Berlin, 1900. Vol. ii., 1901. 
Kluge, Fr. : Geschichte der Englischen Sprache, in Pauls 

Grundriss ; Vorgeschichte der germanischen Sprachen, 

in PauTs Grundriss. 2 
Kretschmer : Einleitung in die Gesch. d. griech. Sprache, 

1896. 
Leskien : Deklination im Slavisch und Deutsch, 1876. 
Loth : Angelsachsen und Romanen, in Englische Studien 

XIX ; Les Mots Latins dans les Langues Brittoniques, 

1892. 
MacGillivray, H. S. : The Influence of Christianity on 

the Vocabulary of Old English. Part I. Halle, 

1902. 
Morris : Historical Outlines of English Accidence, edited 

by Bradley. 
Morris and Skeat : Specimens of Early English. 
Morsbach, L. : Anglia Beiblatt VII ; Mittelenglische 

Grammatik, 1 Theil. Halle, 1896; Uber den Urs- 

prung der neuenglischen Schriftsprache, Heilbronn, 

1888. 
Napier, A. : Notes on the Orthography of the Ormulum, 

Academy, 1890 ; and in History of the Holy Rood- 

tree, E. E. T. S., 1894, p. 71. 



LIST OF AUTHORITIES REFERRED TO 411 

Noreen, A. : Urgermanische Lautlehre, 1894. 
Ostermann : Lautlehre Ancren Riwle, Bonner Beitrage, 

1905. 
Osthoff : Das physiologische und das psychologische 

Moment in der sprachlichen Formenbildung, 1879 ; 

Schriftsprache und Volksmundart, Berlin, 1883. 
Osthoff and Brugmann : Morphologische Untersuchungen, 

Vol. I., 1878. 
Passy, Paul : Changements Phonetiques du Langage. 

Paris, 1891. 
Paul : Principien der Sprachgeschichte. 
Pogatscher : Zur Lautlehre der griech., lat. und roman. 

lehnworter im altenglischen (Q. F. 64). Strassburg, 

1888. 
Rippmann, W. : The Sounds of Spoken English. London, 

1906. 
Scherer : Geschichte d. deutschen Sprache, 1868. 
Schleicher : Compendium, 2 1866 ; Deutsche Sprache, 2 

1869. 
Schmidt, Johann : Verwandtschaftsverhaltnisse der Idg. 

Sprachen, 1872. 
Schrader : Urheimat der Indogermanen, in Reallexikon 

der Indogerm. Altertumskunde 1901 ; Sprachverglei- 

chung und Urgeschichte, 1890. 
Siebs : Zur Geschichte der engl.-friesisch. Sprache, 1889. 
Sievers, E. : Angelsachsische Grammatik, 3 Halle, 1898 ; 

Phonetik, 4th ed. 
Skeat : Concise Etymological Dictionary of the English 

Language, 1901 ; Principles of English Etymology. 
Smith, Gregory : Specimens of Middle Scots. 
Streitberg, W., Indogerm, Forschungen, iii. 805, etc. ; 

Urgermanische Grammatik. 
Strong, Logemann and Wheeler : History of Language, 

1891. 
Sweet, Henry : Cura Pastoralis, Introduction ; History 

of English Sounds, Oxford, 1888 ; Llistory of Lan- 
guage, 1900 ; New English Grammar, Part I., Oxford, 

1892; Primer of Phonetics (2nd ed.), Oxford, 1902 ; 

Primer of Historical English Grammar ; Primer of 



412 LIST OF AUTHORITIES REFERRED TO 

Spoken English (3rd ed.), Oxford, 1900; Shorter 

English Historical Grammar ; Words, Logic, and 

Grammar, Trans. Phil. Soc, 1875-76. 
Taylor, Isaac : The Origin of the Aryans, 1890. 
Ten Brink : Chaucers Sprache mid Verskunst, Leipzig, 

1899. 
Wechssler : Gibt es Lautgesetze ? 1900. 
Whitney : Language and its Study, 1875 ; Life and 

Growth of Language, 1886. 
Wright, Joseph : English Dialect Grammar, 1905 ; 

Grammar of the Dialect of Windhill, E.D.S., 1892. 
Wyld : History of O.E. g in the Middle and Modern 

English Dialects, Otia Merseiana, vol. ii. ; Engl. 

Studien, XXVIII. , p. 393, etc. ; Otia Merseiana, 

IV., p. 75, etc. 



THE end 



BILLING AND SONS, LTD., PRINTERS, GUJLDFURD 



APR 13 WW 















^ 



tf 






v^" 



- \ S 









s- 



^ 




3 <> 

<> '0, k * A 

,0' -^ ,a^ x » c 






% 






** 



, * .A o, <G <" y o « ,v "* <\ 






^0 C 



'% 



# 



tf 



^^ 'i 



a" 



^ A> O- v* ' ' " ^ ^ A^ C ° N 

VV^V *° ... v?? 



^S- A^ 







LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



llillllilllllllilllllllllllllllllll 

003 243 883 



